Search for: "State v. London" Results 361 - 380 of 4,112
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
30 Jun 2010, 9:18 am by Adam Wagner
The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010) - Read judgment The Mayor of London has won a court order to evict a camp of protesters from Parliamentary Square, with the High Court stating that his response to the protest was proportionate and not a breach of the protesters’ human rights. [read post]
19 Nov 2009, 12:58 am
We have previously reported on the first instance decision of Maher v Groupama Est [2009] EWHC 38 (QB) in which the English Court considered two preliminary issues in proceedings brought by English claimants in London, against the French insurer, Groupama, for damages they incurred in an accident in France, in which the French insured was killed. [read post]
1 May 2012, 4:00 am by Jill Murray, Olswang.
  However, he stated there was a “strong public interest in this statutory regime”. [read post]
5 Apr 2017, 3:44 pm by Giles Peaker
London Borough of Islington v Dyer (2017) EWCA Civ 150 Termination of an introductory tenancy requires a notice under s.128 Housing Act 1996. [read post]
20 Apr 2013, 11:55 am
Justice Myers in Sabey v. [read post]
20 May 2021, 2:30 am by S S
Hot on the heels of the decision in R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon (2021) EWHC 739 (Admin) (see our note here) comes this altogether more satisfying decision, Elkundi & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Birmingham City Council (2021) EWHC 1024 (Admin), on the nature and enforceability of the duty under s. 193(2) Housing Act 1996. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 3:07 am by sally
Supreme Court W (Algeria) & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 8 (7 March 2012) Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Gedeon Richter Plc v Bayer Pharma AG [2012] EWCA Civ 235 (07 March 2012) Miah & Ors v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 261 (07 March 2012) Lamichhane v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 260 (07 March 2012) Zieleniewski v Scheyd… [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 10:04 pm
The recent case of Asda Stores Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007,] concerned the interpretation of a number of provisions in the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (“the Regulations”), which implemented Council Directive (EC) 93/43. [read post]
9 Oct 2010, 9:04 pm
The recent case of Asda Stores Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007,] concerned the interpretation of a number of provisions in the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (“the Regulations”), which implemented Council Directive (EC) 93/43. [read post]
8 Oct 2010, 8:20 pm
The recent case of Asda Stores Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007,] concerned the interpretation of a number of provisions in the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (“the Regulations”), which implemented Council Directive (EC) 93/43. [read post]
7 Oct 2010, 8:05 pm
The recent case of Asda Stores Ltd v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007,] concerned the interpretation of a number of provisions in the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 (“the Regulations”), which implemented Council Directive (EC) 93/43. [read post]
26 Nov 2017, 11:40 pm
Beer Pong shots c/o WikipediaA recent High Court decision (Breakthrough Funding v Nearby Media [2017] EWHC 2271 ch) follows on from an interim injunction which was granted by Arnold J earlier in the year. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 7:00 pm
(Underwriters at Lloyd’s London v NL Industries Inc.)]Now there's no glossing over that! [read post]
30 Jul 2008, 3:17 pm
The thorny and increasingly important issue of jurisdiction went before the Court of Appeal earlier this month in Bush v Bush [2008] EWCA Civ 865.The Facts: The parties were married in London in April 1988 and went to live in Tanzania in 1991 or 1992. [read post]
7 Feb 2016, 9:30 am by INFORRM
The remarks were dismissed at the time by the Metropolitan police which said “We would not normally dignify such comments with a response, however, on this occasion we think it’s important to state to Londoners that Mr Trump could not be more wrong”. [read post]