Search for: "Mr. Godfrey"
Results 41 - 60
of 66
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 May 2020, 1:13 am
Mr Hoskins QC says the concept is broader in UK law. 1230: Mr Hoskins QC says under our legislation one needs to satisfy both ‘commonality’ and ‘suitability’. [read post]
13 May 2020, 1:02 am
Please refresh the UKSC Blog homepage throughout the day in order to get the latest posts. 15:58: Mr Harris QC suggests this is an appropriate place to finish for the day and the Justices agree. 15:54: Citing the Canadian Supreme Court case of Godfrey, Mr Harris QC says the court referred there to Microsoft. [read post]
17 Feb 2011, 6:15 am
In Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd Justice Morland found that an ISP that was notified about a defamatory posting stored on its server but took no steps to remove it could be held liable as a publisher of the defamation. [read post]
12 Nov 2015, 1:11 am
On 27 October 2015 Mr Justice Blue, sitting at first instance in the Supreme Court of South Australia, handed down judgment on liability in the defamation case of Duffy v Google Inc ([2015] SASC 170). [read post]
24 Jun 2018, 4:00 am
” The Law Society Appeal Panel’s finding of professional misconduct against Mr. [read post]
2 Oct 2011, 4:13 pm
He's not exactly Mr. [read post]
6 Mar 2016, 7:26 am
Mr Godfrey submitted that sub-section (4) was a gateway provision: when its preconditions were met, the obligation was deemed to arise; and, critically, this was exactly the same obligation as one sees in sub-section (1). [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 12:05 pm
As an example, Mr. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 3:41 am
Even Mr. [read post]
12 Jan 2015, 11:25 am
As Mrs. [read post]
21 Sep 2020, 3:00 am
The Guardian (written by Godfrey Hodgson). [read post]
17 Mar 2011, 5:53 am
Because of larger forces going on the the legal world (like Mr. [read post]
15 Dec 2010, 7:21 am
Mr. [read post]
25 Jun 2011, 4:37 am
See Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd. [2001] QB 201. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 3:31 pm
“It was agreed the businesses would be Mr. [read post]
14 May 2015, 12:57 am
It may well be that the Third Defendant’s “notice and take down” procedure has not operated as rapidly as Mr Browne and his client would wish, but it does not follow as a matter of law that between notification and “take down” the Third Defendant becomes or remains liable as a publisher of the offending material. [read post]
27 Sep 2012, 9:46 am
And yet, in spite of Mr. [read post]
12 Mar 2016, 11:35 am
Mr. [read post]
15 Mar 2020, 5:36 pm
The claimant said that Mr Wightman harmed its plans to raise funds for a wildcat sanctuary in the Highlands. [read post]
19 Mar 2012, 3:30 am
There have been three resolved PCC cases since last week: A woman vs Daily Mail, Clause 1, 15/03/2012; Mr Simon Plosker vs Financial Times, Clause 1, 14/03/2012; Christine Grahame MSP v Scottish Daily Mail, Clause 1, 12/03/2012. [read post]
