Search for: "State v. Hansard"
Results 1 - 20
of 57
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
9 Dec 2010, 4:00 am
The Child Poverty Action Group (Respondent) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions(Appellant) [2010] UKSC 54 – Read judgment / press release The Supreme Court has ruled that where benefits are overpaid as a result of a mistaken calculation, the department responsible cannot claim these amounts back via the common law route of restitution; the Secretary of State’s only recourse is via Section 71 of the Social Security Administration Act. [read post]
9 Jul 2008, 12:53 pm
State v. [read post]
17 Mar 2013, 6:07 am
Gideon v. [read post]
18 Jan 2023, 10:37 am
More recently, in Hansard Construction Corporation v. [read post]
6 Dec 2016, 1:45 am
Lord Pannick QC says it is no answer for the Government to say that the long title to the 1972 Act “says nothing about withdrawal“. 16:04: Lord Pannick QC refers to the case of Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, which he submits supports a “flexible response” to constitutional developments. [read post]
7 Dec 2016, 2:11 am
James Wolffe QC, now appears in support of the Respondents. 15.16 Lavery QC states that the will of Parliament should not overrule the will of the Irish people and that the triggering of article 50 without their consent would do just that. 15.14 Lavery QC says that Northern Ireland has a complex constitutional settlement that is legally binding as a result of section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. 15.10 Lavery QC says that section 1 of the Northern Ireland Act… [read post]
26 Sep 2013, 7:21 am
In this week’s case (Franzman v. [read post]
6 Apr 2017, 5:15 am
The Defendant argued that section 32(4) formed a proper part of the balancing process envisaged by Article 9 and was within the margin of flexibility permitted to the UK as a Member State. [read post]
18 Nov 2009, 9:04 pm
 A recent case (McEvoy v. [read post]
Hanging By A Thread: Reportage and Clause 4 of the Defamation Bill – Sophie Walker and Jason Bosland
11 Feb 2013, 4:00 am
(Hansard, Column 196, February 5, 2013.). [read post]
9 Feb 2015, 2:47 pm
I am thinking here of Spencer v Taylor (which we analysed here), Charalambous v Ng, and now Edwards v Kumarasamy. [read post]
6 Feb 2015, 11:19 am
Idle-O Apartments v. [read post]
10 Feb 2009, 8:26 am
Given that Membership of the EU is dependent upon Member States adhering to the Convention, does the UK intend to pull out of Europe or alternatively implement the ECtHR decision in Hirst v UK(No2)? [read post]
27 Oct 2011, 9:41 am
It may well have been that differences of opinion on that debate lay behind the majority and minority opinions in Hirst v United Kingdom back in 2005. [read post]
7 Apr 2019, 8:47 pm
[emphasis added] This is the same approach employed by Justice Sharpe in Griffin v. [read post]
9 Jan 2017, 3:19 pm
Finally, it is worth reflecting on the illuminating heading of the debate in Hansard : Domestic Violence Victims: Cross-Examination. [read post]
7 Apr 2011, 7:12 am
In this week’s case (Chun v. [read post]
14 Jun 2011, 4:38 pm
Also differences based on housing status has been held to be within Art 14 (Larkos v Cyprus 30 EHRR 597, R (RJM) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2009] 1 AC 311).If the arguments were right, it would affect many provisions of the Housing Acts and Rent Acts. [read post]
6 Sep 2017, 11:07 am
” United States v. [read post]
