Related content

Foss v. Harbottle—A Marathon Where Nobody Wins

By  

Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 40, Iss. 1, 1981-04 ,pp. : 29-33

Cambridge University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

The New Tort of Appropriation of Personality: Protecting Bob Marley's Face

By  

Cambridge Law Journal, Vol. 55, Iss. 1, 1996-03 ,pp. : 56-64

Cambridge University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Where Human Rights Meet Administrative Law: Essential Elements and Limits to Delegation: European Court of Justice, Grand Chamber C-355/10: European Parliament v. Council of the European Union

By  

European Constitutional Law Review, Vol. 9, Iss. 3, 2013-11 ,pp. : 513-533

Cambridge University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Sex discrimination: University of Huddersfield v Wolff The EAT discusses s.63A of the Sex Discrimination Act, and the guidance of the EAT in Barton, in remitting a case for rehearing where the tribunal had failed to apply them properly in deciding whether less favourable treatment was "on grounds of sex". (p4)

By  

Industrial Relations Law Bulletin, Vol. 726, Iss. 1, 2003-12 ,pp. : 4-5

Industrial Relations Services

Access to resources Recommend Favorite

Trustee companies in with a chance of making celibacy hereditary: from the old Rule in Strong v Bird to the new science of cryopreservation via a vital distinction obvious to osculating schoolboys but not to the normally perceptive Courts of Jersey and the Isle of Man. Whether piercing the corporate veil is the only way of piercing the corporate veil

By Molloy Tony   Graham Toby  

Trusts & Trustees, Vol. 19, Iss. 2, 2013-03 ,pp. : 115-120

Oxford University Press

Access to resources Recommend Favorite