Smith v Statutory Authorities Service Commission

Core Citations

CONSIDERS

• Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
• Reigate v Union Manufacturing Company (Ramsbottom) Ltd

[See more]

• Boolell v The State
• R (Bermingham and Others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
• Thomas (Endell) v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
• Weg Motors Ltd v Hales
• London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council
• Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
• R v Hanley Revising Barrister; R v Stoke-on-Trent Town Clerk
• R (Pepushi) v DPP
• Bronester Ltd v Priddle
• Herbert Charles v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission and Another
• Mungroo v The Queen
• Malik and Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
• State (Modern Homes (Ireland) Ltd), The v Dublin Corporation
• Shell U.K. Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd
• Martin v Tauranga District Court
• Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper
• Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd
• Bell v DPP of Jamaica
• R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Noncyp Ltd
• R v DPP, ex parte C
• Sookermany v DPP
• Gardiner v Moore
• Sharma v Brown-Antoine and Others
• Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
• Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board
• R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Mead and Cook
• Liverpool City Council v Irwin
• R v General Council of the Bar, ex parte Percival
• Russell v Norfolk (Duke of)
• R v Horsham District Council and Another, ex parte Wenman

CONSIDERS

• Data Protection Act 1998

This document cites

• Liverpool City Council v Irwin
• Lewis v Motorworld Garages Ltd
• Shell U.K. Ltd v Lostock Garage Ltd
• R v DPP ex parte Kebeline
• Young & Marten Ltd v McManus Childs Ltd



See all quotations

• Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper
• Trollope & Colls Ltd v North West Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board
• London & Clydeside Estates Ltd v Aberdeen District Council
• Bronester Ltd v Priddle
• Malik and Mahmud v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA
• R (Bermingham and Others) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office
• State (Modern Homes (Ireland) Ltd), The v Dublin Corporation
• Bell v DPP of Jamaica
• R v DPP, ex parte C
• Thomas (Endell) v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago
• R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Noncyp Ltd
• R v General Council of the Bar, ex parte Percival
• Weg Motors Ltd v Hales
• Sharma v Brown-Antoine and Others
• Reigate v Union Manufacturing Company (Ramsbottom) Ltd
• Mungroo v The Queen
• R (Pepushi) v DPP
• R v Commissioners of Inland Revenue, ex parte Mead and Cook
• Woods v W M Car Services (Peterborough) Ltd
• Gardiner v Moore
• R v Horsham District Council and Another, ex parte Wenman
• R v Hanley Revising Barrister; R v Stoke-on-Trent Town Clerk
• Luxor (Eastbourne) Ltd v Cooper
• Bell v Director. of Public Prosecutions
• Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw
• Boolell v The State
• Herbert Charles v The Judicial and Legal Service Commission and Another
• Sookermany v DPP
• Russell v Norfolk (Duke of)
• Data Protection Act 1998