Search for: "State v. Pieretti"
Results 1 - 11
of 11
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Nov 2016, 2:14 pm
In the review, she stated, for the first time, that her sons had a fear of heights and that living on the 11th floor was impacting their mental health. [read post]
12 Oct 2010, 3:03 pm
Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 This is an odd case, in lots of ways, but what is decided in this appeal to the Court of Appeal is potentially of broader significance and certainly useful as clarification. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
It was absurd to suggest that whether Ms H had spent too much on pocket money for her children depended on consideration of s.11 Children Act.This was not a case like Pieretti v Enfield LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1104, where there had been a failure to have regard to disability. [read post]
24 Nov 2013, 7:10 am
It was absurd to suggest that whether Ms H had spent too much on pocket money for her children depended on consideration of s.11 Children Act.This was not a case like Pieretti v Enfield LBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1104, where there had been a failure to have regard to disability. [read post]
13 Oct 2010, 2:04 am
Toepfer International GmbH [2010] EWCA Civ 1100 (11 October 2010) Haringey Independent Appeal Panel v M, R (on the application of) [2010] EWCA Civ 1103 (12 October 2010) Oceanconnect UK Ltd & Anor. v Angara Maritime Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 1050 (12 October 2010) Pieretti v London Borough of Enfield [2010] EWCA Civ 1104 (12 October 2010) Mölnlycke Health Care AB & Anor v BSN Medical Ltd & Anor [2010] EWCA Civ 1053 (12 October 2010) SO, R… [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 1:26 am
In witness evidence, Mr Gill stated that he had Asperger’s syndrome but no medical evidence was adduced in support of this. [read post]
23 Dec 2013, 1:26 am
In witness evidence, Mr Gill stated that he had Asperger’s syndrome but no medical evidence was adduced in support of this. [read post]
1 Aug 2011, 1:00 am
This case was wholly unlike the case of Pieretti v Enfield London Borough Council [2010] EWCA Civ 1104; [2011] PTSR 565 (which held that the section 49A duty complements a housing authority’s duties to the homeless under Part 7 of the Housing Act 1996). [read post]
7 Sep 2014, 1:57 pm
In R (Brown) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWHC 3158 (Admin), at [85], it was held that s.49A (now s.149) requires the public authority to “have due regard to the need to take steps to gather relevant information in order that it can properly take steps to take into account disabled persons’ disabilities in the context of the particular function under consideration. [read post]
2 Apr 2023, 11:13 am
” The review decision barely dealt with this, stating: “140. [read post]
24 Jan 2017, 2:14 pm
The question, in large part, was the significance of Lord Neuberger’s judgment in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council; Kanu v Southwark London Borough Council [2016] AC 811, at paras 78 and 79 “78. [read post]
