Sentences with phrase «lord phillips»

Lord Phillips expressed a personal view that it would probably have been a good thing for the OFT to do, but the law precluded this.

Lord Phillips did not have freedom to decide that way.

He was also ordered to pay costs of his failed application to the Court of Appeal (Lord Phillips MR, Sedley and Hale LJJ)[2001] EMLR 394 for permission to appeal against the jury's verdict.

In rather the same way that an amicable divorce can turn sour when claims for money begin, so the post-action nit - picking over costs provides an ideal breeding ground for Lord Phillips» warfare scenario.

In the Keynote Speech at the Law Society Litigation Conferences in June 2003, Lord Phillips, then Master of the Rolls, referred to «warfare between claimant and defence interests» as a result of costs - only proceedings, which led to the courts «not only being clogged with this completely unproductive and expensive satellite litigation but the conciliatory approach to dispute resolution, which the Woolf reforms sought to engender, was being poisoned».

They relied on Re Medicaments and Related Class of Goods (No 2)[2000] All ER (D) 2425, [2001] 1 WLR 700 (endorsed by the House of Lords in Porter v Magill [2001] UKHL 67, [2002] 1 All ER 465), where Lord Phillips said:

The outcome of the case was decided by Lord Phillips's concurrence in the result by a different route.

Lord Phillips's words are likely to prove prophetic.

In Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1223, [2001] All ER (D) 246 (Jul) Lord Phillips, said: ««Harassment» is... a word which has a meaning which is generally understood.

The power has not been used yet — though Lord Phillips told the committee he had come close regarding the disagreements over the establishment of the MoJ.

Auld LJ referred to Lord Phillips in East Berkshire, who said that UK courts must under HRA 1998, s 2 (1) have regard to Convention case law, if relevant to proceedings under HRA 1998, and asked, «can there, in these circumstances, be any justification for preserving a rule that no duty of care is owed in negligence because it is not fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty?»

Although damages are not available, Lord Phillips pointed out that the court is able to grant injunctions to prevent an actual or threatened breach of contract.

In his evidence to the select committee, Lord Phillips said that should have led to a sea - change in the attitude of HMCS and the DCA to the role of the judges in relation to the provision and administration of court resources.

Lord Phillips says he is against such a role for the executive in appointing judges, as laid out in the recent green paper — The Governance of Britain — published by the Ministry of Justice.

In the Supreme Court decision of Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58, [2011] All ER (D) 101 (Dec), Lord Phillips described it as a difficult area of law and acknowledged that it may need to be fundamentally reviewed.

Lord Phillips is now head of the judiciary, and soon the House of Lords will elect its own speaker for the first time.

Lord Phillips said: «I am only aware of one Commonwealth country where Parliament is involved in judicial appointments and that is Mozambique.

The event brought together some of the country's top judiciary, including the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, and the master of the rolls.

No such concerns were expressed by Lord Phillips CJ in R v Campbell [2007] EWCA Crim 1472, [2007] All ER (D) 309 (Jun), when construing the new bad character provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (CJA 2003).

As Lord Phillips CJ says, this was contrary to common sense where the previous convictions showed propensity to commit the type of offence with which the accused was charged.

Edwards (arguably the more important case on the facts) thus ended up 4 — 3, but the complication is that Lord Phillips agreed that the result of Lord Dyson's principal judgment was «plainly right» but on reflection preferred to reach it by a different route.

(iii) Both the majority and two of the dissenters in Edwards accept the correctness of Johnson and the explanation of its demarcation in Eastwood; there is a majority for the proposition that in law contractual disciplinary procedures do come within the exclusion zone, if one accepts Lord Dyson's view of what Lord Phillips «really meant».

This gives some credence to Lord Dyson's view of what Lord Phillips «really» meant.

Its president, Lord Phillips, has said legal teams and members of the public as well as journalists can tweet from the highest court in the land because there is «seldom» any need for confidentiality once a case has reached that stage.

In a lecture to the Howard League on Penal Reform last week, Lord Phillips said ministers» failure to consider the cost implications of their sentencing policies has led to the «critical» shortage of prison spaces.

Lord Phillips said that he thought this result clearly right but was worried about the artificiality of relying on the presumed intent of Parliament and the parties.

Supreme Court president Lord Phillips has dropped the requirement that barristers and other advocates wear traditional court dress when appearing before the justices.

Lord Phillips CJ rejected the submission on the basis that to direct the jury to have regard to bad character evidence for some purposes and disregard its relevance in other respects «would be to revert to the unsatisfactory practices that prevailed under the old law».

As to the actual decision, there are three judgments in the majority, by Lord Dyson (with whom Lord Walker agreed), Lord Phillips and Lord Mance.

However, it may be significant that Lord Dyson did say that it is not inconsistent with the Johnson exclusion zone (though Lord Mance was more circumspect on that point) and Lord Phillips said that it was not called into question and indeed showed a similarly restrictive view of damages to that in Addis.

Lord Phillips CJ's reasoning in Campbell (see box p 168) is flawed.

Lord Phillips CJ's reasoning is also difficult to reconcile with R v Lawson [2006] EWCA Crim 2572, [2006] All ER (D) 116 (Aug), where, under s 101 (1)(e), it was readily recognised that evidence of propensity to untruthfulness is capable

Through the momentum provided in 2004 by First President Guy Canivet (France), maintained and developed by Lord Phillips, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, and Mr. Torben Melchior, President of the Supreme Court of Denmark, our Network, with EU financial backing, has successfully laid down the bases of a necessary cooperation and effectively promoted exchanges and collaboration between our supreme courts.

Popplewell J at 53 refers to Lord Phillips» paraphrasing of Somafer in [2003] EWCA Civ 147 as a requirement of «sufficient nexus» between the dispute and the branch as to render it natural to describe the dispute as one which has arisen out of the activities of the branch.

Lord Phillips summarised the key issue, which he emphasised was a narrow one, before the Supreme Court at para 57 as «whether the Relevant Charges constitute «the price or remuneration, as against the services supplied in exchange» within the meaning of the Regulation.

Longmore LJ stated: «It seems to me that the phrase «oppressive and unacceptable» as used by Lord Nicholls [in Majrowski] is the same as «oppressive and unreasonable» used by Lord Phillips in Thomas v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 1233.

However, Lord Phillips clearly had in mind that the test under para 353 is now effectively the same as that in certification cases, ie that «[i] f on at least one legitimate view of the facts or the law the claim may succeed», the applicant must be treated as making a fresh claim and thus as entitled to appeal.

The Supreme Court (Lord Phillips, Lord Walker, Lady Hale, Lord Mance and Lord Neuberger MR) considered the correct interpretation of reg 6 (2) and decided the OFT was not so permitted.

However, says Lord Phillips, further detailed enquiries into this matter will not be pursued given that Khan «continues to suffer from ill health and Judge J no longer holds judicial appointment».

In the meantime, Lord Phillips will hand down a practice direction before Christmas to permit solicitors and other advocates, as defined in the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, s 27 (9), to wear wigs in circumstances where they are worn by members of the Bar.

Lord Phillips, the former lord chief justice, refuted these contentions at a Delhi Conference in 2008, stating «court - ordered mediation merely delays briefly the progress to trial and does not deprive a party of any right to trial»... «Mediation is ordered in many jurisdictions without materially affecting the prospects of success».

The case was Harris v Perry and another [2008] EWCA Civ 907, [2008] All ER (D) 88 (May) judgment in which was given by the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, who acknowledged «particular assistance» from Lord Justice Wilson (the other member of the court being Lord Justice May).

Lord Phillips stated at para 88: «The Banks now rely on the Relevant Charges as an important part of the revenue that they generate from the current account services.

Lord Phillips's comment that «[i] f the court concludes that a [fresh] claim has a realistic prospect of success when the [home secretary] has reached a contrary view, the court will necessarily conclude that the [home secretary]'s view was irrational» seems novel in equating, on the face of it, disagreement with irrationality.

Lord Phillips, president of the Supreme Court, said Wilson LJ would prove a «valuable asset» to the court as another judge with a family law background.

5 March 2008 — Lord Chief Justice rules that Article 8 ECHR rights to private life and correspondence must be respected in mutual assistance proceedings concerning business transactions On 4 & 5 March 2008, the Divisional Court (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers LCJ presiding) heard the judicial review in Hafner and anor v. City of -LSB-...]

Lord Phillips, the head of the Supreme Court, spoke to lawyers this week on the future of the Human Rights Act 1998, which the Conservative Party have threatened to repeal.

In Ghaidan v Godin - Mendoza, which Lord Phillips described as the «definitive» case on s. 3 HRA 1998, the House of Lords held that s. 3 could permit a Court to depart from a provision whose meaning was unambiguous, if that provision was not ECHR compatible, with the dramatic implication that s. 3 could oblige a Court to disregard the legislative purpose of subsequent Parliaments.

Lord Phillips quoted with approval the following passage from Laws LJ in Thoburn v Sunderland City Council:

On a second - hand reading, it does seem somewhat hopeful to assume, as Lord Phillips appears to, that if the Act were repealed courts would still place rights in anything like the central position they have been since the its passing, largely through momentum.