Search for: "Metcalf v. Masters"
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Aug 2011, 10:55 pm
As the Master of the Rolls indicated in the now infamous paragraph 168 of his judgment in the same case, some MI5 officials: appear to have a dubious record relating to actual involvement [in the mistreatment of detainees], and frankness about any such involvement, with the mistreatment of Mr Mohamed when he was held at the behest of US officials. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 2:40 pm
By: James Kachmar A recent decision in the case Jobscience, Inc. v. [read post]
2 Nov 2015, 12:22 pm
Metcalfe, 2015 BCSC 1195; and Dosanjh v. [read post]
13 Dec 2009, 9:02 pm
Master Campbell has previously interpreted "should" as being no more than a recommendation (see Metcalfe v Clipston [2004] EWHC 9005 (Costs) and Cullen v Chopra [2007] EWHC 90093 (Costs). [read post]
18 Jun 2012, 3:21 pm
In Acosta v Acosta, 2012 WL 2178982 (D.Minn.) [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 5:40 pm
By: James Kachmar A recent decision in the case Jobscience, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Jan 2014, 5:40 pm
By: James Kachmar A recent decision in the case Jobscience, Inc. v. [read post]
4 Oct 2009, 11:34 pm
Master Campbell, in Metcalfe v Clipston [2004] EWHC 9005 (Costs), adopted the latter interpretation:"For [the paying party] to succeed, I consider the obligation on the receiving party to give notification of funding pre issue must be absolute but in my judgment, the word ‘should' in the PDP does not impose such an obligation. [read post]
