Search for: "State v. Baros" Results 21 - 40 of 115
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
As Baroness Hale DPSC said in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James [2014] AC 591 , para 35: “The authorities are all agreed that the starting point is a strong presumption that it is in a person’s best interests to stay alive. [read post]
19 Mar 2014, 1:42 am by Rosalind Earis, 6KBW
In addressing the very nature of human rights law, Lord Reed called with approval upon the words of Lord Cooke in R (Daly) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2001] 2 AC 532: “The truth is, I think, that some rights are inherent and fundamental to democratic civilised society. [read post]
12 Nov 2018, 4:25 am by SAMANTHA KNIGHTS QC
Baroness Hale specifically alerted at [35] to the very real problem of discrimination against gay people before stating that this was not happened in the present case. [read post]
1 Sep 2020, 12:54 am by CMS
The court considered a number of authorities in this regard, including X and Y v The Netherlands (App no 8978/80) and KU v Finland (App no 2872/02), in which the Strasbourg court had indicated that ECHR, art 8 placed a positive obligation on states to put in place effective deterrence measures against activities which may pose a threat to fundamental values and essential aspects of the private lives of individuals, particularly children and other vulnerable persons. [read post]
13 Nov 2008, 6:14 pm
  Baroness Hale went on to say: 57. [read post]
20 May 2009, 4:28 pm
The Secretary of State’s submissions were clear as to the result. [read post]
19 Nov 2012, 7:45 am by Angela Patrick, JUSTICE
The Act of State doctrine has no relevance in connection with this case. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 1:25 am by CMS
Notes that the Public Law Project will not be making oral submissions, but says these are important submissions. 1200: Michael Fordham QC says the closest case we have is Bobb & Anor v Manning (Trinidad & Tobago) [2006] UKPC 22 (25 April 2006). 11:55:  Michael Fordham QC submits it is accepted prerogative power has to be exercised in the public interest. 11:48: Michael Fordham QC queries whether there is some magic for prerogative powers. [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 2:48 pm by NL
Particular highlights include: Baroness Hale of Richmond DBE QC, our keynote speaker, who has given a number of significant judgments on housing law cases in the last few years, including Austin v LB Southwark (tolerated trespass); Ali v Birmingham CC (Article 6 and homelessness); Rodriguez v Government of Gibraltar (discrimination in the allocation of housing); Meier v Secretary of State (scope of possession orders); and Pinnock v… [read post]
11 Nov 2010, 2:48 pm by NL
Particular highlights include: Baroness Hale of Richmond DBE QC, our keynote speaker, who has given a number of significant judgments on housing law cases in the last few years, including Austin v LB Southwark (tolerated trespass); Ali v Birmingham CC (Article 6 and homelessness); Rodriguez v Government of Gibraltar (discrimination in the allocation of housing); Meier v Secretary of State (scope of possession orders); and Pinnock v… [read post]
28 Jul 2009, 9:55 am
From an extended examination of Chadwick LJ’s judgment in Oxley v Hiscock [2004] EWCA Civ 546, which expressly raises ‘fairness’ on the basis of relevant conduct as the criterea by which share of interest should be assessed, in the absence of express agreement, and Stack v Dowden [2007] UKHL 17, which appears to limit ‘fairness’ and expressly concerned shares in a property in joint names, where Oxley v Hiscock concerned a… [read post]
10 Apr 2018, 4:13 pm by INFORRM
In this case IPSO refused to rule on whether Baroness Tonge had been misrepresented, because she herself did not bring the complaint. [read post]
16 Jun 2014, 1:26 am by Dave
 Baroness Hale in Birmingham CC v Ali [2009] UKHL 36 – a case which, imho, can be made to say what you want it to say – said at [65], “There may come a case in which we should re-examine the circumstances in which a finding of intentional homelessness ceases to colour all future decisions under the Act but there is no need for us to do so now”. [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 8:42 am by Dave
Three decisions of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal on HB matters stand out: SS v North East Lincolnshire Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 300 (AAC); MB v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (HB) [2011] UKUT 321 (AAC); MR v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 284 (AAC).  [read post]
17 Dec 2011, 8:42 am by Dave
Three decisions of the Administrative Appeals Chamber of the Upper Tribunal on HB matters stand out: SS v North East Lincolnshire Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 300 (AAC); MB v Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea (HB) [2011] UKUT 321 (AAC); MR v Bournemouth Borough Council (HB) [2011] UKUT 284 (AAC).  [read post]
26 Dec 2008, 1:15 am
As Baroness Hale made it very clear in MacLeod, this is a job for the legislature, not the judiciary.At number three in the top ten comes McCartney v Mills. [read post]
20 May 2013, 5:23 am by S
In R (M) v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 Baroness Hale held that “care and attention” meant “looking after” someone and “looking after” meant doing something for the person being cared for which he cannot or should not be expected to do for himself.SL had attempted suicide in 2009 after he had become homeless. [read post]
20 May 2013, 5:23 am by S
In R (M) v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 Baroness Hale held that “care and attention” meant “looking after” someone and “looking after” meant doing something for the person being cared for which he cannot or should not be expected to do for himself.SL had attempted suicide in 2009 after he had become homeless. [read post]
26 Mar 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]