The government appealed
an offending judgment of the court, Al - Khawaja v UK, to the Grand Chamber of the European Court and then got it deferred until after the domestic courts had decided Horncastle.
Not exact matches
The British
Court of Appeal determined that her refusal amounted to discrimination and found that she offended gay colleagues in the office with her refusal; in addition to that, in the court's judgment, Ladele's views on marriage are not «a core part of her religion.&r
Court of Appeal determined that her refusal amounted to discrimination and found that she
offended gay colleagues in the office with her refusal; in addition to that, in the
court's judgment, Ladele's views on marriage are not «a core part of her religion.&r
court's
judgment, Ladele's views on marriage are not «a core part
of her religion.»
The
court would not be bound to recognise the
judgment in the presence
of an enforceable New York Convention arbitral award, but if such an award does not exist (which is likely in such circumstances) it is, on the wording
of the Regulation, arguably bound by the recognition and enforcement articles
of the Brussels I (recast), even though this may
offend the
court's pro-arbitration stance.
That, in the
court's
judgment, is an inadequate basis on which to impose an indeterminate sentence on a necessary hypothesis that there is a significant risk
of serious harm from future
offending.
I've written here a number
of times before about what seems to be a growing practice
of fraud on the
courts designed to remove negative online reviews: file a defamation lawsuit, show up with the «defendant,» stipulated
judgment in hand, and then take the
judgment to Google and have the
offending review «de-indexed» so it will never show in search results.