Search for: "State v. Hackney" Results 61 - 80 of 127
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
7 May 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
6 May 2022, 8:00 am by Gene Takagi
Philip Hackney: You can find my testimony on the Committee website and here on SSRN. [read post]
23 Apr 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
12 Feb 2018, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
R (Stott) v Secretary of State for Justice, heard 18 Jan 2018. [read post]
5 Mar 2018, 1:17 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
7 Nov 2016, 6:47 am by Joy Waltemath
Reversing summary judgment against the employee’s breach of contract claims, the court found that ambiguities in the contracts created genuine factual issues, but it affirmed summary judgment on the remaining issues (Hackney v. [read post]
29 Jun 2020, 6:35 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
On Monday 29 and Tuesday 30 June 2020, the UK Supreme Court will hear the appeal of R (Z & Anor)(AP) v Hackney London Borough Council & Anor. [read post]
19 Mar 2018, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
12 Mar 2018, 2:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
19 Feb 2018, 1:00 am by Aimee Denholm
Williams & Anor v London Borough of Hackney, heard 14-15 Feb 2018. [read post]
12 Oct 2020, 1:00 am by Matrix Legal Support Service
The second judgment to be handed down is R (on the application of Z and another) (AP) v Hackney London Borough Council and Anr . [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm by NL
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ… [read post]
14 Aug 2011, 12:06 pm by NL
" The subsequent turf wars over who paid for destitute asylum seekers arguably included such cases as Westminster CC v NASS [2002] 1 WLR 2956, [2002] UKHL 38, W v Croydon, A v Hackney [2007] 1 WLR 3168, [2007] EWCA Civ 266, R v Wandsworth LBC ex p O [2000] 1 WLR 2539, R (Mani) v Lambeth LBC [2002] EWCA Civ 836, and, of course, M v Slough BC [2008] UKHL 52 (our report here) and R (Zarzour) v LB of Hillingdon [2009] EWCA Civ… [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 9:47 am by Dave
That proposition was effectively trumped by Terry Gallivan, Counsel for Islington, who relied on the contrary proposition in Akinbolu v Hackney LBC (1997) 29 HLR 259, 269 as well as that old chestnut R v Sec of State for the Environment ex p Tower Hamlets LBC [1993] QB 632, 643, neither of which had been cited to Collins J. [read post]
18 Dec 2009, 9:47 am by Dave
That proposition was effectively trumped by Terry Gallivan, Counsel for Islington, who relied on the contrary proposition in Akinbolu v Hackney LBC (1997) 29 HLR 259, 269 as well as that old chestnut R v Sec of State for the Environment ex p Tower Hamlets LBC [1993] QB 632, 643, neither of which had been cited to Collins J. [read post]
29 Oct 2020, 12:21 pm by Giles Peaker
Finally, notes on Z & Anor, R (on the application of) v Hackney London Borough Council & Anor; Gateway Housing Association v Personal Representatives of Ali & Anor; Royal Borough of Kingston-Upon-Thames v Moss and other cases will be coming soon. [read post]
3 May 2012, 2:28 pm by Leanne Buckley-Thomson
Mr Justice Eder held that the correct approach was that the present legislation is presumed valid but, as stated by Lord Goff in Kirklees BC v Wickes Building Supplies Ltd [1993] AC 227, the existence of the alleged defence is to be taken into account in the exercise of the court’s discretion [paragraph 78]. [read post]