Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A and Others v National Blood Authority and Another, also known as the Hepatitis C Litigation, [3] was a landmark product liability case of 2001 primarily concerning blood transfusions [1] but also blood products or transplanted organs, [4] all of which were infected with hepatitis C, where liability was established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 and the Product Liability Directive (85 ...
At the start of the 2020–21 season, Osabutey was loaned out again, but now to newly promoted Oud-Heverlee Leuven and with a buy clause. [6] Osabutey moved to Belgian First Division A club Kortrijk on 31 August 2021, the last day of the 2021 summer transfer window. He signed a one-year contract with the option of two further years. [7]
Welch v. United States , 578 U.S. 120 (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the decision in Johnson v. United States [ 1 ] announced a substantive rule change and is therefore retroactive.
This page was last edited on 13 September 2023, at 02:32 (UTC).; Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License; additional terms may apply.
In relation to Stage 2 (choice of law) he held that the relevant law was clearly that of the lex situs of the property, and cited various authorities in support including Winkworth v Christie Manson and Woods Ltd [1980] Ch 496 and Inglis v Robertson [1898] AC 616. But he noted that those cases related to goods, and that the same rule applied in ...
Welsh Development Agency v Export Finance Co Ltd [1992] BCLC 148 (often abbreviated to WDA v Exfinco) is a judicial decision of the English Court of Appeal. The decision related to a number of aspects relating to complex financing arrangement, but is most often cited for the decision in relation to recharacterisation .
These questions, which the Court of Appeal in Wheatly v Drillsafe Ltd [2001] RPC 133, 142 dubbed "the Protocol questions" have been used by English courts for the past fifteen years as a framework for deciding whether equivalents fall within the scope of the claims. On the whole, the judges appear to have been comfortable with the results ...
The Sinn Féin Funds case [1] (Buckley and Others v. Attorney General and Another) was a 1942–1948 Irish court case in which the Sinn Féin party claimed ownership of funds deposited with the High Court in 1924 which had belonged to the Sinn Féin party before 1923.