Search for: "Hamblen v. State"
Results 1 - 20
of 44
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
21 Jul 2011, 12:50 am
In Sovarex SA v Romero Alvarez SA [2010] Folio 1231, Mr Justice Hamblen held that the court had the power to direct that there be a determination of disputed facts under the procedure set out in s66 of the Arbitration Act 1996 (the Act) for the enforcement of arbitral awards.The claimant, Sovarex SA (Sovarex), applied to the High Court for permission to enforce an arbitration award and to enter judgment in the terms of the award under s66 of the Act. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 4:35 am
We previously reported the judgment of Mr Justice Hamblen in Gard Marine & Energy Ltd v LLoyd Tunnicliffe and Ors [click here for our previous blog] concerning the law applicable to a contract of reinsurance. [read post]
19 May 2007, 9:20 am
Matt Huffman, who invited Hamblen to give the prayer, agreed it was inappropriate for him to mention issues on that day's agenda.Still pending of course is the 7th Circuit's decision in the Indiana legislative prayer case of Hindrichs v. [read post]
8 Feb 2012, 2:51 pm
See Hamblen v. [read post]
16 Feb 2022, 4:08 pm
The Supreme Court yesterday handed down judgment in ZXC v Bloomberg LP [2022] UKSC 5. [read post]
20 Jul 2022, 4:24 am
The correct approach is to follow the guidance which was stated to be “authoritative” in KO (Nigeria), namely the direction in the Upper Tribunal case of MK (Sierra Leone) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] INLR 563 (“MK”). [read post]
19 Oct 2009, 4:19 am
Mr Justice Hamblen was guided by the judgment of the European Court of Justice in Kalfelis v Schroeder, Muenchmeyer, Hengst & Co [1988] ECR 5565, which states that the issue under Article 6(1), where there are a number of defendants, is whether the claims against the defendants are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. [read post]
15 Mar 2018, 6:13 am
Preliminary Hearing In March 2012, Hamblen J heard a trial of preliminary issues. [read post]
Case Preview: Protect Rural England (Kent) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
27 Jan 2021, 2:30 am
Secretary of State for the Home Department[4]. [read post]
4 Mar 2015, 3:13 am
Lord Toulson, Lord Kerr and Lord Neuberger in the majority stated that Hamblen J had reached an entirely proper conclusion that the role played by the appellant, based mainly on its fundraising relating to a small sum solicited by the Sea Shepherd Conversation Society (SSCS), had been of minimal importance. [read post]
28 Nov 2014, 6:16 am
SSUK relied heavily on Sabaf SpA v Meneghetti SpA [2003] RPC 14 at [59], which states that the joint tortfeasor must have “made the tortious act his own”. [read post]
7 Apr 2015, 1:39 am
Kerr LJ stated that, at the least, “it cannot be said that it was plainly not open” to Hamblen J to reach the conclusion he did, and therefore the Court of Appeal should not have interfered with his judgment to that effect. [read post]
10 Mar 2023, 3:26 am
Lord Hamblen neatly summaries this position at [57] stating: “In summary, the certification provision should be interpreted as being conclusive as to the service charge “sum payable by the tenant” but not as to the underlying liability for the service charge. [read post]
25 May 2010, 6:46 am
United States v. [read post]
18 Mar 2011, 1:30 am
The learned judge held that the levy payable under the 1995 Regulations was payable by reason of the sea fish products’ crossing the frontier; he rejected Hamblen J’s reference to the concept of the “chargeable event”, stating that it was a “distraction” (para 53). [read post]
15 Mar 2012, 2:30 am
The Court stated: The evidence shows that the Children are well-established in their community and school in Hamblen County. [read post]
27 Feb 2024, 12:50 am
Decision Lord Hamblen delivered the only judgment, with which all the other Lord Justices agreed. [read post]
7 Feb 2012, 11:13 am
Father stated the Children did very well in Hamblen County schools and that any relocation would be detrimental. [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 1:00 am
The first is Secretary of State for Health and Ors v Servier Laboratories and Ors. [read post]
18 Apr 2019, 2:22 am
In the present case, the Supreme Court concurred with Jackson, Hamblen and Flaux LJJ that “human rights claim” in s 82(1)(b) of the 2002 Act must mean an “original human rights claim” or a fresh human rights claim which falls within rule 353 of the Immigration Rules. [read post]
