Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Hannah v. Peel, 1 K.B. 509, was a 1945 English legal case decided in the King's Bench Division of the High Court.The court held that the owner of the locus in quo does not have a superior right to possession over the finder of lost property that is unattached to the land.
The case was then appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court. The Appellate Division (Beadle CJ, Quenet JP, Macdonald JA; Fieldsend AJA, dissenting) ruled that a fresh detention order had to be made in order for Madzimbamuto's detention to continue under the 1966 regulations, but found that the Smith government was the de facto ...
Oxford v Moss (1979) is an English criminal law case, dealing with theft of intangible property: information.A divisional court of High Court, to whom the legal question of the taking of a proof (final draft) exam paper was referred by magistrates, and which is not one of binding precedent, ruled that information could not be deemed to be intangible property and therefore was incapable of ...
The case, R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, went to the Divisional Court, where it was heard by judges Richard Gibbs and John Laws. [13] Bancoult's argument was made on several grounds: firstly, that the Crown could not exclude a British citizen from British territory, except in times of war, without a ...
A divisional court, in relation to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, means a court sitting with at least two judges. [1] Matters heard by a divisional court include some criminal cases in the High Court (including appeals from magistrates' courts and in extradition proceedings) as well as certain judicial review cases.
The Appellants sought permission to appeal to the House of Lords, a certificate having been granted by the divisional court that the case raised an issue of general application and public importance, but leave to appeal was refused by the House of Lords after an oral hearing on grounds that they did not consider that the appeal would "give rise ...
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
R (Pinochet Ugarte) v Bow St Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate [2000] 1 AC 61, [1] 119 and 147 is a set of three UK constitutional law judgments by the House of Lords that examined whether former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet was entitled to claim state immunity from torture allegations made by a Spanish court and therefore avoid extradition to Spain.