The question whether barnardisation may fall short of the complete anonymisation of data and the status of barnardised data under the complex provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998 were considered by the House of Lords in the case of Common Services Agency v Scottish Information Commissioner 2008 1 WLR 1550, the above case is also reported at All ER 2008 (4) 851.
The popularity of discretionary trusts rose sharply after the decision of the House of Lords in McPhail v Doulton 1971 AC 424 where Lord Wilberforce restated the test for certainty of objects in connection with discretionary trusts.
•
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the House of Lords rejected this argument.
In November 2002 the British Court of Appeal said it found his detention at Guantanamo "legally objectionable", but stopped short of forcing the government to intervene on his behalf.
The House of Lords held that it had statutory authority to operate the refinery, saying "Parliament can hardly be supposed to have intended the refinery to be nothing more than a visual adornment to the landscape in an area of natural beauty".
In British Railways Board v Herrington 1972 AC 877, the House of Lords had decided that occupiers owed a duty to trespassers, but the exact application of the decision was unclear.
However, such conceptual objections seem less strong since the decision of the House of Lords in McPhail v Doulton 1971 AC 424 where Lord Wilberforce rode roughshod over objections to widening the class of valid discretionary trusts on the basis that there would be difficulty ascertaining beneficiaries for the court to enforce the trust in favour of.
United States House of Representatives | White House | House of Lords | House of Representatives | House | House of Commons of the United Kingdom | Royal Opera House | Massachusetts House of Representatives | Florida House of Representatives | Speaker of the United States House of Representatives | Sydney Opera House | Australian House of Representatives | Random House | House (TV series) | House of Habsburg | Minnesota House of Representatives | House of Hohenzollern | House of Bourbon | Pennsylvania House of Representatives | Little House on the Prairie | House of Wettin | House of Stuart | Louisiana House of Representatives | Oregon House of Representatives | house music | House of Ascania | manor house | house | Texas House of Representatives | House Un-American Activities Committee |
Berezovsky v Michaels is an English libel decision in which the House of Lords allowed Boris Berezovsky and Nikolai Glushkov to sue Forbes for libel in UK courts, despite the allegedly libelous material relating to their activities in Russia.
On returning to academic life, Dickson's research activity has included work on the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, formerly the judicial or appellate committee of the House of Lords.
He is one of five additional Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords.
•
In October 2009 the judicial functions of the House of Lords were transferred to the new Supreme Court of the United Kingdom under Part 3 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, with the twelve Lords of Appeal in Ordinary becoming the inaugural Justices of the Court.
The matter was taken to the Court of Appeal at the House of Lords where on 15 January 1887, under a bench consisting of Lords of Appeal in Ordinary (commonly known as Law Lords) Esher MR, Bowen LJ and Fry LJ.
The case was appealed first to the High Court, then to the House of Lords.
Case notes critically analyse and evaluate rulings from the House of Lords, the Privy Council, the national courts of the Commonwealth States, the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights.
Finally, when it became clear that the English legal profession was firmly opposed to the reform proposals, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act 1876 removed the provisions for the abolition of the judicial functions of the House of Lords, although it retained the provisions that established the High Court and the Court of Appeal.