Search for: "State v. Giles"
Results 181 - 200
of 436
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
2 Aug 2015, 12:37 pm
” RBKC’s review upheld suitability, stating: “42. [read post]
18 Feb 2018, 3:40 pm
He stated he has no plans to sell the property and he has not been approached regarding a redevelopment of the area. [read post]
21 Nov 2015, 8:18 am
Complaint was made about the state of the bathroom and the need to use a jug in the bathroom. [read post]
10 Mar 2017, 2:56 pm
Barakate v LB Brent. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 3:59 pm
Hardy, R (on the application of) v Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council [2015] EWHC 890 Oh, we have been waiting for this one. [read post]
15 Apr 2015, 2:13 pm
Barnet, again. by Giles Peaker appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment. [read post]
25 Aug 2008, 9:43 pm
.My first thought on scanning the holding of Giles v. [read post]
22 Oct 2017, 4:18 pm
Panayiotou v Waltham Forest and Smith v Haringey. [read post]
19 Apr 2016, 2:06 pm
(on the application of Brighton & Hove City Council) v. [read post]
27 Apr 2015, 3:25 pm
Clark v Manchester City Council [2015] UKUT 129 (LC) Mr Clark had a licence for an HMO for not more than 5 occupants. [read post]
19 Jun 2016, 2:34 pm
That left Di Palma v United Kingdom (1988) 10 EHRR CD149 and Wood v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR CD69, both of which found court as public authority not an issue when the court “merely provided a forum for the determination of the civil right in dispute between the parties”. [read post]
6 Nov 2014, 1:23 pm
In the Secretary of State’s view, qualification criteria form part of an allocation scheme. [read post]
10 Nov 2008, 6:49 pm
See Giles, 128 S. [read post]
9 May 2016, 2:16 pm
Blanket policies are always foolish to adopt… The post Curiosities and wonders by Giles Peaker appeared first on Nearly Legal: Housing Law News and Comment. [read post]
13 Jun 2007, 6:01 am
United States v. [read post]
17 Nov 2015, 4:00 am
Sarony in SCt Burrow-Giles case neve… -> RT @IPLawAlerts: Who Owns the Patent? [read post]
3 Sep 2008, 1:50 pm
The Court noted Giles v. [read post]
18 Apr 2024, 6:15 am
The Office also relies heavily on Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2016, 4:03 pm
Ahmad v Newham [2009] PTSR 632 was not relevant where the issue was discrimination, rather than relative allocation of preference. [read post]
7 Jul 2016, 1:44 pm
By stating the requirement to be “cogent” evidence that there is a sound basis for hope for the future, the standard is pitched at a realistic level. [read post]
