Search for: "HENDERSON v. LORD"
Results 1 - 20
of 101
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Jul 2014, 5:03 am
For judgment, please download: [2014] UKSC 41 For Court’s press summary, please download: Court’s Press Summary For a non-PDF version of the judgment, please visit: BAILII The post New Judgment: Henderson v Foxworth Investments Limited & Anor [2014] UKSC 41 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
7 Jan 2020, 4:09 am
Philips's Head Office in Amsterdam Author Philips Source Wikipedia Philips Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lord Justices Patten, Floyd and Henderson) Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computer Inc. and others [2019] EWCA Civ 2230 (17 Dec 2019) This was an appeal against three separate but related judgments by Mr Justice Arnold: Koninklijke Philips NV v Asustek [read post]
16 Oct 2019, 5:39 am
Standard YouTube Licence Jane Lambert Court of Appeal (Lords Justices Floyd, Henderson and Jackson) Martin and another v Kogan [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 Readers can judge from the video that Florence Foster Jenkins was about as good at singing as William McGonagall was at poetry or, indeed, I am at ballet. [read post]
18 Feb 2013, 5:59 pm
The Order Wednesday of last week in Patriot Performance Materials, Inc. v. [read post]
8 Sep 2015, 1:30 am
The issue of gratuitous alienations should therefore be kept in mind for company directors when transferring assets who wish to avoid a legal battle as long as that of Henderson v Foxworth Investments and Another. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 9:57 am
Rough and ready apportionment and the ambit of reasonable disagreement In recent judgments the Supreme Court has emphasised the limited role of a court of appeal when asked to review a judgment from a court below (see for example McGraddie v McGraddie 2014 SC (UKSC) 12 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd 2014 SC (UKSC) 203). [read post]
5 May 2021, 9:07 am
In this post, Kenny Henderson, Temi Orekunrin and Megan O’Neill of CMS summarise the second day of submissions in the appeal of Lloyd v Google LLC. [read post]
31 Jan 2022, 9:59 am
In this post, Kenny Henderson and Alex Askew of CMS comment on the Supreme Court’s decision in Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, which concerned whether a representative data protection action seeking damages for loss of control of personal data could be brought on behalf of large numbers of unidentifiable class members. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 4:33 am
In this post, Kenny Henderson and Zainab Hodgson of CMS summarise the first day of submissions in the appeal of Lloyd v Google LLC, which concerns a claim alleging that the appellant (‘Google’) breached its duties as a data controller to over 4m Apple iPhone users during a period of some months in 2011- 2012, when Google was able to collect and use their browser generated information. [read post]
24 Oct 2007, 2:10 am
Scottish Ministers (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants) (Scotland)Henderson (AP) (Original Appellant and Cross-respondent) v. [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 1:32 am
In the recent rulings of McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 the Supreme Court overturned an appellate court for interfering with a trial judge’s findings of fact. [read post]
15 Dec 2020, 12:45 am
In this post, Kenny Henderson, David Bridge, Jessica Foley and Devina Shah, who all work within the litigation and arbitration team at CMS, comment on the decision handed down last week by the UK Supreme Court in the matter Mastercard Incorporated and others v Walter Hugh Merricks CBE [2020] UKSC 51, which has significant implications for the UK competition law collective proceedings (or class actions) regime. [read post]
Lord Justices Floyd and Arnold disagree on the inventiveness of expandable hoses [2020] EWCA Civ 871
24 Jul 2020, 12:29 am
The difficultly inherent in the case was reflected by the disagreement between the two patent specialist judges who heard the case, Lord Justices Arnold and Floyd. [read post]
30 Jan 2016, 4:32 am
That was the difficult question the Supreme Court had to grapple with in the case of R(C) v. [read post]
16 Dec 2015, 3:58 am
In delivering the leading judgment, Lord Neuberger stated that the effect of Henderson J’s “unless” order, coupled with Hildyard J’s finding that the appellants had failed to comply with the disclosure requirements in that order, was that the appellants were debarred from defending the claim unless they were granted relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. [read post]
29 Oct 2019, 2:11 am
In Guiste v Lambeth LBC (2019) EWCA Civ 1758, the Court of Appeal returned again to the meaning of Lord Neuberger’s eliptical phrase in Hotak v Southwark LBC that, for the purposes of the homelessness provisions in the Housing Act 1996, vulnerability meant being significantly more vulnerable than ordinarily vulnerable as a result of being made homeless. [read post]
11 Mar 2011, 4:32 pm
In Henderson v. [read post]
25 Jul 2011, 1:07 am
GOGGINS AND OTHERS v. [read post]
30 Oct 2020, 2:46 am
Similar claims for damages to those made by the appellant were held to be irrecoverable by the House of Lords in Gray v Thames Trains Ltd [2009] UKHL 33 (“Gray”). [read post]
3 Jun 2011, 5:34 am
On the expenditure issue, the Court of Appeal agreed with Henderson J that FYAs should be available (LLP1 had conceded the trading issue). [read post]
