Search for: "Lord v. Collins"
Results 61 - 80
of 220
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Nov 2010, 5:05 am
Lord Collins elaborated the position on broadly similar reasoning. [read post]
26 Mar 2024, 2:38 am
Following the decision of the House of Lords, in Macmillan Inc v. [read post]
22 Mar 2011, 10:18 am
The appeal to the Supreme Court is due to be heard by Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lord Mance, Lord Collins and Lord Clarke. [read post]
14 Mar 2008, 2:53 am
In upholding the first instance decision, Lord Justice Collins stated that the interests of justice were not confined to the interests of justice in England and that the international dimension of this case demanded a broader view.This judgment provides helpful commentary on the law and practice of confidentiality and privilege as applicable to arbitration proceedings and raises questions of considerable practical importance relating to national and international arbitration. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope's main judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed, traced the history of cases before and after Runa Begum. [read post]
17 Feb 2010, 4:07 pm
Lord Hope's main judgment, with which Lady Hale and Lord Brown agreed, traced the history of cases before and after Runa Begum. [read post]
22 Dec 2016, 5:17 am
Moreover, Lord Carnwath advocated the rationale in the ILPA case where Collins J demonstrated “a clear understanding” of the practical consequences of invalidity. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 8:46 pm
The UKSC normally sits in five-member panels — here the panel consisted of Lords Hope, Walker, Neuberger, Clarke, and Collins. [read post]
29 Apr 2024, 2:40 am
On 25 April 2024, Collins Rice J delivered a decision on damages for the successful claimants in Blake & Anor v Fox [2024] EWHC 956 (KB). [read post]
25 Nov 2020, 11:18 am
For more information on the book, including endorsements by Lord Collins, Professor Basedow, Professor Silberman, Justice de Nardi, Professor Neels and Professor Reyes, click here. [read post]
20 Apr 2011, 4:06 pm
Lord Collins retires on 7 May, but will be sitting regularly as an Acting Justice until 31 July. [read post]
19 Jun 2009, 3:40 pm
Let’s start with Elias LJ’s lead judgment, then Lord Collin’s concurring judgment, before considering Rix LJ’s dissent. [read post]
4 Dec 2014, 9:04 am
However, the justices did discuss it, with a notable point arising in that Lord Collins and Lord Sumption agreed that the contract, as well as the conveyance and the mortgage, were all part of the same transaction, whilst Lady Hale, Lord Wilson and Lord Reed disagreed that the contract was part of the indivisible transaction. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
/**/ R (A) v Croydon & R (M) v Lambeth UKSC [2009] 8 This was an appeal heard by the House of Lords over the course of four days in July, but with judgment delivered by the new Supreme Court. [read post]
29 Nov 2009, 10:29 am
/**/ R (A) v Croydon & R (M) v Lambeth UKSC [2009] 8 This was an appeal heard by the House of Lords over the course of four days in July, but with judgment delivered by the new Supreme Court. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 3:20 pm
The FTT went on to say: The House of Lords Uratemp v Collins [sic] (albeit in a context of different legislation) held that the usage of a room defines what it is and that this depended on the facts at the time the decision was made. [read post]
17 Mar 2014, 3:20 pm
The FTT went on to say: The House of Lords Uratemp v Collins [sic] (albeit in a context of different legislation) held that the usage of a room defines what it is and that this depended on the facts at the time the decision was made. [read post]
29 May 2009, 2:36 pm
(e) in Doherty v Birmingham City Council [2008] 3 WLR 636, the House of Lords had concluded that, in order to raise an exceptional defence of the sort contemplated in Kay, the defendant would have to show that the decision to seek possession was Wednesbury unreasonable. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1 v) the… [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 2:50 am
(The Knowsley argument, paralleling the finding on assured tenants on Knowsley Housing Trust v White, link to our report) ii) Brent v Knightley was wrongly decided, such that the right to apply under s.85 Housing Act 1985 survived the (ex) tenant's death iii) Such a right to apply is a possession under article 1, Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights iv) To hold that the right to apply did not survive death would be in breach of Art 1 Protocol 1 v) the… [read post]
