Search for: "State v. Dyson"
Results 141 - 160
of 268
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2017, 2:15 pm
I do not accept that but even if it is correct, as Dyson LJ (as he was then) said in Rowley v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2007) 1 WLR 2861 at paragraph 24: “the efficacy of these alternative remedies (in so far as it is relevant at all) should be judged by what they purport to provide rather than how effectively they work in practice. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 12:30 am
Lords Clarke and Dyson also referred to the absence of a link between the two claims, with Lord Dyson calling the civil recovery proceedings ‘free standing’. [read post]
18 May 2009, 5:39 am
United States v. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am
Lords Brown, Dyson, Walker and Kerr agreed. [read post]
18 Dec 2023, 3:05 am
On the same day, there was a trial of a preliminary issue on meaning and comment in the libel case of Dyson v Channel 4 before HHJ Lewis. [read post]
25 Jul 2012, 7:03 am
RT (Zimbabwe) and others (Respondents) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38 - read judgment It is no answer to a refugee claim to say that the individual concerned should avoid persecution by lying and feigning loyalty to a regime which he does not support. [read post]
27 Sep 2018, 7:18 am
The most famous example of the Court granting a springboard injunction was Dyson v Hoover [2001] RPC 27, but there is limited jurisprudence in the UK. [read post]
21 Mar 2012, 10:22 am
The source stated that the police officer “could be” the claimant and that he had reported this to the police. [read post]
18 Jan 2019, 4:22 am
Mr Justice Nugee heard the application and what follows is taken from the transcript.He was keen from the outset to inspect the physical samples of the products, confirming the approach to registered design cases advocated by Sir Robin Jacob in Dyson v Vax:“What really matters is what the court can see with its own eyes. [read post]
16 Jan 2016, 1:41 am
In doing so, he referred to the leading authority Proctor v Bailey(1889) 42 Ch 390, which states that “… an injunction is granted for prevention, and where there is no ground for apprehending the repetition of a wrongful act there is no ground for an injunction“. [read post]
27 Jul 2006, 4:51 am
McKerr v United Kingdom, at para. 111). [read post]
7 Nov 2014, 5:52 am
By our count, federal judges have trampled over state sovereignty with respect to the heeding presumption in no fewer than eleven states – Alaska, Colorado (despite contrary state-court authority), Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, New York (despite contrary state-court authority), South Dakota, and Wyoming.Finally, because various states have taken quite different approaches to whether a heeding presumption exists at all and… [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:34 am
The overriding consideration is, of course, unconscionability but the underlying principle here was stated as follows: If the claimant's conduct at the time takes the form of encouraging the defendant to believe that his otherwise tortious interference with the claimant's property will be waived and not objected to and, in reliance on that, the defendant subsequently acts in a way which can be characterised as detrimental then the position is, I think, different from the facts… [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 7:34 am
The overriding consideration is, of course, unconscionability but the underlying principle here was stated as follows: If the claimant's conduct at the time takes the form of encouraging the defendant to believe that his otherwise tortious interference with the claimant's property will be waived and not objected to and, in reliance on that, the defendant subsequently acts in a way which can be characterised as detrimental then the position is, I think, different from the facts… [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 11:00 pm
This duty does not require the state toinitiate a particular investigation; its obligations are met by ensuring that there is a suitable system in place.[2] However, in England and Wales, the traditional style of inquest, as considered in the case of R v HM Coroner for North Humberside and Scunthorpe, Ex p Jamieson,[3] is a significant means by which the state meets this obligation. [read post]
31 Mar 2011, 9:50 am
Supreme Court The main issue for the Supreme Court (Lords Phillips, Rodger, Collins, Clarke and Dyson) to decide was whether the First and Second Complaints were based on the same grounds, such that the general principle that the same cause should not be brought against somebody twice (nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa) was engaged. [read post]
30 Jan 2014, 1:31 am
Core Issues Trust, R (On the Application of) v Transport for London & Another [2014] EWCA Civ 34 is a fascinating ruling of the Court of Appeal, England and Wales (Lord Dyson MR, Lord Justice Briggs and Lord Justice Christopher Clarke) since it isn't an intellectual property case at all, but has the potential to raise so many IP issues. [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 3:58 pm
If the state cannot show that all 3 of the above conditions have been met the interference will be unlawful. [read post]
30 Nov 2014, 3:58 pm
If the state cannot show that all 3 of the above conditions have been met the interference will be unlawful. [read post]
20 Feb 2012, 5:22 am
PP v Secretary of State for the Home Department, (formerly VV [Jordan]), PP v SSHD, W & BB v SSHD and Z, G, U & Y v SSHD, heard 30 – 31 January 2012. [read post]
