Search for: "Hale v. Brown"
Results 41 - 60
of 166
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
18 Feb 2015, 4:27 pm
Lord Hoffmann (with whom Baroness Hale of Richmond and Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood agreed) said at [124]: “There is in my opinion no question of creating an “image right” or any other unorthodox form of intellectual property. [read post]
11 Nov 2014, 3:55 am
The Supreme Court again considered Lord Browne-Wilkinson’s judgment in the case of Target Holdings (above). [read post]
1 Sep 2014, 4:21 am
The post Case Comment: R (Whiston) v Secretary of State for Justice [2014] UKSC 39 appeared first on UKSCBlog. [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
28 Nov 2013, 6:27 am
If it is found that the third parties in this case were negligent then the respondent will be liable under its non-delegable duty of care to the appellant. [1] Brown v Nelson & Ors [1971] LGR 20 [2] Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293, 301 [3] Cassidy v Ministry of Health [1951] 2 KB 343 [4] A (Child) v Ministry of Defence [2005] QB 183, 47 per Lord Phillips of Worth [read post]
15 Apr 2013, 7:56 am
Neil Turner v Daily Mail, Clause 1, 12/04/2013; Ms Carina Trimingham v Daily Mirror, Clause 1, 11/04/2013; Ms Carina Trimingham v Metro, Clause 1, 11/04/2013; Bath & North East Somerset Council v The Times, Clause 5, 11/04/2013; Warren Hamilton Daily Mai, Clause 1, 11/04/2013; Catherine Whiteside The Scottish Sun, Clauses 1, 5, 11/04/2013; Ms Lynne Hales v Daily Mail, Clause 6, 11/04/2013; Emilie Sandy v The Citizen (Gloucester)… [read post]
2 Aug 2012, 9:19 am
” And even as far back as Gibbons v. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:35 am
Decision of the Supreme Court Dismissing the appeal, the majority of Lords Walker, Brown, Mance and Wilson held that the standard of ‘knowledge’ required pursuant to s 11(4) had been acquired by the claimants sufficiently early so as to render most (nine out of ten) of the claims time-barred under the Act. [read post]
15 Jun 2012, 3:35 am
Decision of the Supreme Court Dismissing the appeal, the majority of Lords Walker, Brown, Mance and Wilson held that the standard of ‘knowledge’ required pursuant to s 11(4) had been acquired by the claimants sufficiently early so as to render most (nine out of ten) of the claims time-barred under the Act. [read post]
12 Jun 2012, 2:00 am
Lord Brown thought not. [read post]
21 May 2012, 9:01 am
Brown, 185 Misc.2d 326, 330, 711 N.Y.S.2d 707 (Crim. [read post]
2 May 2012, 5:00 am
James V. [read post]
4 Apr 2012, 6:39 am
§1920 – bit.ly/HewRoz (Mark Sidoti) PhotoCop & The Red Light of Admissibility - bit.ly/H18QVF (Josh Gilliland) Pippins v. [read post]
26 Mar 2012, 8:31 am
The bench throughout is Lords Hope, Brown, Mance, Dyson and Sumption. [read post]
25 Mar 2012, 5:52 pm
Bollinger, and Grutter v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 9:36 am
Some were part of the road to Brown v. [read post]
23 Mar 2012, 5:00 am
“Everyone knows Brown but there are cases leading up to Brown and way past Brown. [read post]
22 Mar 2012, 6:47 am
Lord Brown agreed with this approach [111]. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:28 am
Lord Brown agreed with this approach [111]. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:22 am
Lord Brown agreed with this approach [111]. [read post]
