Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The case first went to the Divisional Court, where Hooper LJ and Cresswell J decided in favour of Bancoult on 11 May 2006. The court found that the "interests of BIOT must be or must primarily be those whose right of abode and unrestricted right to enter and remain was being in effect removed", and that as Section 9 of the Constitutional Order ...
R v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, ex parte World Development Movement Ltd is a judicial review case in English law decided by the Divisional Court of England and Wales on 10 November 1994 in which the World Development Movement challenged the decision of the United Kingdom's Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to spend £234 million on a ...
On 27 November 2000, Judge Toulmin in the Technology and Construction Court (a division of the High Court) held, under the Limitation Act 1980, Factortame's claims against the UK government were "actions founded on tort", and that consequently a six-year limitation period applied. This meant that other claims against the Merchant Shipping Act ...
Ohidul Islam and Others v. The Government of Bangladesh and Others was a case brought before the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh. [1] [2] The writ petition was filed three years after the Government of Bangladesh, amid the 2018 quota reform movement, issued a circular declaring the existing quotas for descendants of 1971 Liberation War veterans to be unconstitutional. [3]
Court: Divisional court (England and Wales) Full case name: Regina v. (usually spoken as The Crown and or against) Vincent Martel Fagan : Decided: 31 July 1968: Citation [1969] 1 QB 439, [1968] 3 All ER 442, [1968] 3 WLR 1120, 52 Cr App R 700: Case history; Prior action: Conviction by Willesden magistrates in 1967, upheld in Middlesex Quarter ...
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 High Court decision was met with mixed views in the daily press. The Daily Telegraph commented that the High Court ruling increased the prospect of an early general election, [50] while the Financial Times and The Guardian reported the case as a "blow" or a "setback" to the