Search for: "State v. Banerjee"
Results 1 - 20
of 39
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 May 2022, 4:09 pm
Contents include:Case CommentsAgora: Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of ChileAntonio R Parra, Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile: ‘ICSID’s Longest-Running Case’ An introduction to the Agora Niccoló Ridi, Víctor Pey Casado and President Allende Foundation v Republic of Chile: Layers of Preclusion Danielle Morris & Cem… [read post]
13 Feb 2008, 1:54 pm
Jones, Jr. v. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 10:55 am
State of Bihar be shapeless, formless like Agni or Vayu , or even a simple piece of wood. [read post]
1 Aug 2015, 4:40 pm
In Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253, the House of Lords provided some flexibility in respect of the interpretation of the term “likely” here but the judge considered simply that he had to show that “the defendant is likely to fail to establish one of the statutory defences”. [read post]
28 Jul 2010, 8:14 am
Supreme Court Morrison Sports Ltd & Ors v Scottish Power [2010] UKSC 37 (28 July 2010) Star Energy Weald Basin Ltd & Anor v Bocardo SA [2010] UKSC 35 (28 July 2010) O’ Brien v Ministry of Justice [2010] UKSC 34 (28 July 2010) ZO (Somalia) & Ors, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] UKSC 36 (28 July 2010) Rollins, R v [2010] UKSC 39 (28 July 2010) Court of Appeal (Civil Division)… [read post]
8 Aug 2018, 2:02 am
The test in Bonnard is a much higher threshold than in claims for interim injunctions in privacy claims, where the applicant only need establish that his claim is more likely than not to succeed at trial (Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee ([2005] AC 253). [read post]
2 Oct 2014, 5:07 pm
The general approach had to be that courts should be “exceedingly slow” to grant an injunction to restrain publication where the applicant had not satisfied the court that he would probably, or “more likely than not”, succeed at trial (Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44). [read post]
2 Jul 2019, 4:09 pm
“Likely” in this context normally means “more likely than not”, though a lesser prospect of success may suffice where the Court needs a short time to consider evidence/argument, or where the adverse consequences of publication might be extremely serious: Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee [2005] 1 AC 253 [16]-[23] (Lord Nicholls); ABC v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2329 [2019] EMLR 5 [16]. [read post]
17 Sep 2007, 4:04 pm
The suit is Chambers v. [read post]
10 May 2024, 9:30 pm
H/t Michael Banerjee The U.S. [read post]
30 Aug 2014, 5:22 am
In Ajoy Kumar Banerjee v. [read post]
In Defence of the Triple Test: A Case for Retaining the Standard in Bangalore Water Supply (Part-II)
25 Nov 2016, 12:23 pm
Banerjee v P.R.Mukherjee,[5]the first case placed before the Supreme Court on this definition, judges have struggled to evolve a coherent framework.[6]As Justice Bhagwati observed in Workman of Indian Standards Institution, “the tests have not been uniform, they have been guided by empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach. [read post]
In Defence of the Triple Test: A Case for Retaining the Standard in Bangalore Water Supply (Part-II)
25 Nov 2016, 12:23 pm
Banerjee v P.R.Mukherjee,[5]the first case placed before the Supreme Court on this definition, judges have struggled to evolve a coherent framework.[6]As Justice Bhagwati observed in Workman of Indian Standards Institution, “the tests have not been uniform, they have been guided by empirical rather than a strictly analytical approach. [read post]
1 Mar 2019, 11:29 am
Williamson v. [read post]
23 Jan 2023, 4:00 am
: The Enduring Role of Pope Alexander VI’s Inter caetera in Spanish Colonization, (CSLR Research Paper No.1.2023-AFF).Francis Beckwith, Dignitatis Humanae and the Challenges of the New Modern World, (January 6, 2023).Jeremy Kessler, The Legal Origins of Catholic Conscientious Objection, (William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2, 2022).From SSRN (Abortion Rights):Dinah Aryeh, Dennis Chen, Arianne Juin Raymond & Nara Sandberg, The Economic… [read post]
29 Oct 2018, 5:58 pm
Banerjee [2004] UKHL 44). [read post]
18 Aug 2008, 11:51 am
Ltd. v. [read post]
17 Oct 2011, 6:45 am
Banerjee said. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 10:32 am
Section 12(3) of the Act was interpreted by the House of Lords in Cream Holdings Ltd v Banerjee ([2004] UKHL 44) to mean that, in order to obtain an interim injunction, the claimant must ordinarily show (at least) that his claim is more likely than not to succeed at trial. [read post]
16 Feb 2011, 6:52 am
Nevertheless, the newspaper repeated the defamation: in an article alongside a photograph of Watters the newspaper had stated: We may have to apologise to this revolting pervert but will we mean it? [read post]
