Search for: "State v. Biby"
Results 1 - 20
of 44
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Jan 2011, 1:51 am
R (Aguilar Quila) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Advice on Individual Rights in Europe and another intervening); R (Bibi) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2010] EWCA Civ 1482; [2010] WLR (D) 341 “R 277 of the Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, which prevented entry clearance to a party to a marriage where one spouse was a United Kingdom citizen and either party was aged under 21 years, was a disproportionate… [read post]
1 Nov 2018, 4:00 am
In Bibi v. [read post]
13 Oct 2011, 3:17 am
Regina (Aguilar Quila and another) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (AIRE Centre and others intervening) Regina (Bibi and another) v Same (Same intervening) [2011] UKSC 45; [2011] WLR (D) 291 “An immigration rule designed to deter forced marriages, which prevented the granting of leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom as a spouse if either of the parties to the marriage was aged under 21, was an unjustified interference with the right to… [read post]
18 Nov 2015, 2:08 am
However she stated since this was not a remedy sought by the appellants the Court should invite further submissions before finally deciding the outcome of the appeal. [read post]
27 Nov 2015, 3:25 am
Mrs Ali and Mrs Bibi relied on these points in their challenge to the rule, which now forms a part of Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
18 Oct 2011, 8:44 am
Not since R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53 (where foreign nationals were required to obtain the Secretary of State’s permission to get married) has there been such an obvious case of a disproportionate immigration measure. [read post]
28 Jun 2011, 9:00 am
In this case, formerly known as Quila and Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Court of Appeal held that the amendment to the Immigration Rules was disproportionate. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 2:23 am
The measure was similar to the blanket prohibition on persons subject to immigration control marrying without the Secretary of State’s written permission found to be unlawful in R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 2:23 am
The measure was similar to the blanket prohibition on persons subject to immigration control marrying without the Secretary of State’s written permission found to be unlawful in R (Baiai) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 53. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 10:00 pm
R (on the application of Quila and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant); R (on the application of Bibi and another) (FC) (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant) [2011] UKSC 45 – read judgment. [read post]
21 May 2011, 2:46 pm
The front page of today’s New York Times is not solely concerned with the fallout from President Obama’s well publicized dustup with Bibi Netanyahu. [read post]
2 Mar 2023, 9:01 am
And is the new Israeli government headed by Bibi Netanyahu to blame? [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 9:10 am
Overall, it is difficult to reconcile Akhtar, Ejaz and Bibi. [read post]
5 Jan 2018, 9:09 am
The present judgment therefore allowed the Supreme Court to hold that the decisions of the Court of Appeal in Parvaz Akhtar [1981] QB 46 and Bibi v ECO (Dhaka) [2007] EWCA Civ 740 were wrongly decided. [read post]
27 Oct 2013, 9:35 am
This is an unusual qui tam action, United States of America, Fair Laboratory Practices Associates v. [read post]
30 Oct 2015, 4:10 am
The court used the opinion in Qadri v. [read post]
11 Nov 2019, 1:26 am
As Hill J in Aldi Stores Ltd Partnership v Frito-Lay Trading Co GmbH [2001] FCA 1874, [30] stated: In most, if not all cases, the question whether there has been use as a trade mark will be determined by an objective examination of the use in the context in which it appears.His Honour, in considering whether consumers would perceive the name Delphine as a badge of origin, stated: … the context or setting in which consumers viewed the EDMs [electronic direct mail]… [read post]
31 Oct 2016, 2:02 pm
By Ben Coughlan and Bibi FellDefamation law is “…a forest of complexities, overgrown with anomalies, inconsistencies, and perverse rigidities. [read post]
24 Jul 2010, 10:04 am
Background The case concerns a “Motown tribute band”, the Gillettes who were booked by Bibi’s restaurant in Leeds. [read post]
