Search for: "State v. Clipston"
Results 1 - 3
of 3
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
4 Mar 2011, 4:01 am
Court of Appeal (Civil Division) National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers v Serco Ltd (t/a Serco Docklands) [2011] EWCA Civ 226 (04 March 2011) MN (Tanzania), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWCA Civ 193 (04 March 2011) H v City & County of Swansea & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 195 (02 March 2011) RO, R (on the application of) v East Riding of Yorkshire Council & Anor [2011] EWCA… [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]
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]
