Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Case name Citation Date Legal subject Summary of decision R (Haralambous) v Crown Court at St Albans [2018] UKSC 1 24 January Constitutional law, Search and seizure: Closed material procedures could be used in a judicial review of a Crown Court decision and there was no minimum core of material that the government was required to disclose to the other party where such procedures were used.
Hotak v London Borough of Southwark is a 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. It is a landmark judgment concerning homelessness law and concerned the meaning of vulnerability under s.189(1)(c) of Part VII of the Housing Act. [ 1 ]
In Austin v Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark [9] Lord Hope, writing for the majority, comments on the Practice Statement's applicability to the new court: 25. The Supreme Court has not thought it necessary to re-issue the Practice Statement as a fresh statement of practice in the Court’s own name.
During his work for Berlusconi, Mills received $600,000 (£340,000); [3] the precise source of the money and the reason for its payment was under dispute, with Mills saying that the money was part of a larger amount paid indirectly to him by another Italian client, Diego Attanasio, although Attanasio has denied this claim when found in London ...
When considering necessity in R v Cole (1994) Crim. LR 582 Simon Brown LJ. held that the peril relied on to support the plea of necessity lacked imminence and the degree of directness and immediacy required of the link between the suggested peril and the offence charged. This defendant robbed two building societies in order to repay debts.
The King's Bench Prison was a prison in Southwark, south London, England, from medieval times until it closed in 1880.It took its name from the King's Bench court of law in which cases of defamation, bankruptcy and other misdemeanours were heard; as such, the prison was often used as a debtor's prison until the practice was abolished in the 1860s.
Central R. Co. of N. J. v. Mills, 113 U.S. 249 (1885), involved a case where the Court of Claims had dismissed a petition of the claimants, regarding the rejection of two items sued for: (1) labor done and materials furnished by the claimants in constructing the coffer dams, and in performing the work necessarily connected therewith and preliminary to the masonry work for the piers and ...
Peter D. Roos, a former staff attorney at Harvard University's Center for Law and Education, described Mills as a "leading case" in a series of lawsuits that attempted to provide access to education for children with disabilities. [3] Mills v. Board was a certified class action lawsuit under Rule 23(b)(1) and (2). [4]