Search for: "McCombs v. McCombs"
Results 21 - 40
of 135
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Apr 2020, 3:07 am
In 2002 the Court of Appeal had dismissed a similar claim in the case of Briody v St Helens and Knowsley Area Health Authority (2002) QB 856. [read post]
22 Feb 2020, 4:12 am
See Codispoti v. [read post]
16 Dec 2019, 2:50 am
The Court of Appeal (McCombe, King and Nicola Davies LJJ) allowed the appeal: see [2018] EWCA Civ 2832. [read post]
12 Nov 2019, 9:10 am
The judgment in the Court of Appeal was given by Nicola Davies LJ, with whom McCombe and Coulson LJJ agreed. [read post]
31 Jul 2019, 7:43 am
Rutherford Food Corp. v. [read post]
26 Jun 2019, 8:20 am
In Kempton v. [read post]
19 May 2019, 4:15 pm
As already mentioned, on 17 May 2019, the Court of Appeal (Lewison, McCombe and Haddon-Cave LJJ) handed down judgment in the case of Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 (heard 5 March 2019). [read post]
10 Apr 2019, 9:05 pm
Supreme Court held in Rutherford Food Corporation v. [read post]
10 Mar 2019, 5:08 pm
In the case of Lascaris v. [read post]
3 Mar 2019, 4:51 pm
Butt v Secretary of State for the Home Department, heard 17 October 2018 (Underhill V-P, Sharp LJ and Sir Rupert Jackson). [read post]
24 Feb 2019, 4:23 pm
Stocker v Stocker, heard 24 January 2019 (UKSC) Various Claimants v MGN, heard 13 February 2019 (McCombe, Ryder and Floyd LJJ) (judgment to be handed down on 7 March 2019). [read post]
17 Feb 2019, 4:06 pm
IPSO has handed down a number of recent rulings: Resolution Statement 0782-18 Wilson v thesun.co.uk, 2 Privacy (2018), 1 Accuracy (2018), Resolved – IPSO mediation Resolution Statement 07827-18 Wilson v Mail Online, 1 Accuracy (2018), 2 Privacy (2018), Resolved – IPSO mediation 06605-18 McPartlin and Corbett v Woman, 2 Privacy (2018), No breach – after investigation 06604-18 McPartlin and Corbett v Now, 2 Privacy (2018), No breach – after… [read post]
10 Feb 2019, 8:01 am
Powell turns on an assumed difference between the summary of the principles concerning the PSED in Bracking v SSWP [2013] EWCA Civ 1345, given by McCombe LJ (who also heard this appeal) and the Court of Appeal judgment in Barnsley MBC v Norton [2011] EWCA Civ 834. [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 10:00 am
" Citing Matter of McComb v Reasoner, 29 AD3d 795, the Appellate Division noted that the Court of Appeals has interpreted Civil Service Law §72(2) to "require[ ] that the power to discipline be delegated, if necessary, within the governmental department's chain of command" and that the Court of Appeals has further interpreted Civil Service Law §72(2) to:1. require that the power to discipline be delegated, if necessary, within the governmental… [read post]
3 Apr 2018, 7:15 am
Floyd LJ, giving the leading judgment (with which McCombe and Kitchin LJJ agreed) noted that procedural rules such as the one noted above from Phipps on Evidence are important, but not inflexible. [read post]
24 Oct 2017, 6:52 am
McCombe LJ (with whom Lord Dyson MR and David Richards LJ agreed) considered the approach to art 6(2) taken by the domestic and Strasbourg courts ([34]-[53]). [read post]
10 Jul 2017, 2:46 am
As demonstrated by Mamatkulov v Turkey (2005) 41 EHRR 25, DFAL’s criterion of serious irreversible harm shows some intersection with the ECtHR’s application of rule 39 relief. [read post]
3 May 2017, 8:09 am
The Court of Appeal Richards, Elias and McCombe LJ held that in most criminal deportation cases an out-of-country appeal would meet the procedural requirements of art 8. [read post]
5 Mar 2017, 4:05 pm
On 3 March 2017 the Court of Appeal (Lewison, Lloyd-Jones and McCombe LJJ) gave judgment in the important data protection case of Ittihadieh v 5-11 Cheyne Gardens RTM Company Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 121. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 2:14 pm
The question, in large part, was the significance of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council; Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2016] AC 811, at paras 78 and 79 “78. [read post]
