Search for: "Lloyd's Estate v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" Results 1 - 8 of 8
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
16 Nov 2020, 1:00 am by Jocelyn Hutton
Second, issues arising out of the case of Prudential Assurance Company Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2018] UKSC 39. [read post]
26 Apr 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Wednesday 28 and Thursday 29 April the Court will hear Lloyd v Google LLC. [read post]
3 May 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The following Supreme Court judgments remain outstanding: The Law Debenture Trust Corporation plc v Ukraine (Represented by the Minister of Finance of Ukraine acting upon the instructions of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine) Nos. 2 and 3, heard 9-12 December 2019 Manchester Building Society (Appellant) v Grant Thornton UK LLP (Respondent), heard 13-14 October 2020 SC, CB and 8 children (Appellants) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and others… [read post]
2 Nov 2020, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Monday 02 and Tuesday 03 November, the Supreme Court will hear the appeal of Pakistan International Airline Corporation v Times Travel (UK) Ltd. [read post]
10 May 2021, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Tuesday 11 and Wednesday 12 May, the Supreme Court will hear Tinkler v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. [read post]
22 Jul 2019, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Test Claimants in the Franked Investment Income Group Litigation & Ors v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, heard 27 Jun 2019. [read post]
23 Nov 2020, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The second is Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs v London Clubs Management Ltd. [read post]
24 Sep 2010, 3:08 pm by Anna Christensen
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, LondonDocket: 09-945Issue(s): Whether Chapter 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act is an “Act of Congress” subject to the anti-preemption provision of the McCarran-Ferguson Act.Certiorari-Stage Documents:Opinion below (5th Circuit)Petition for certiorariBrief in oppositionPetitioner's replySupplemental brief for petitioner Title: Hogan v. [read post]