The Court of Appeal is not necessarily precluded from hearing appeals by the secretary of state for work and pensions on jurisdictional points against a decision of a social security commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was the successful
appellant before the commissioner; a social security commissioner does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a legally qualified panel member who has refused to extend time or who has struck out a proposed appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The issues arose as to (i) whether or not the court could or should hear the secretary of state's appeals, in view of the fact that he was the successful
appellant before the commissioner; and (ii) whether a social security commissioner had jurisdiction to hear and determine an appeal from an LQPM who had refused to extend time or had struck out a proposed appeal for want of jurisdiction.
Crawford Adjusters v Sagicor General Insurance (Cayman) Limited [2013] UKPC 17: Isaac Jacob and Conn MacEvilly of 9 Stone Buildings represented the successful
Appellant before the Privy Council in a ground - breaking decision which sweeps away centuries - old restrictions on the availability of the tort of civil malicious prosecuti
53 The present case involves the imposition of a remedy, the application of which is based upon conduct of
the appellant before the enactment of ss.
As it stands, it is clear that the court below premised its decision on this issue on a wrong appreciation of the claim of
the appellants before the trial Federal High Court.
He has also represented immigration clients in numerous U.S. District Courts (usually involving law enforcement and ICE violations of constitutional protections) and has represented immigration
appellants before the U.S. Court of Appeals in the Fifth Circuit (New Orleans), the Sixth Circuit (Cincinnati) and the Ninth Circuit (San Francisco).
Not exact matches
The appeal
before the Supreme Court had 21 grounds upon which the
appellant and his party were standing to demand that Osagie Ize - Iyamu be declared winner of the September 28 2016 governorship election.
Responding on points of law, Olanipekun said the notice of appeal was deemed abandoned having not been moved
before he adopted his client's
appellant brief.
More than 600 school districts were
appellants in the case
before the Supreme Court of Texas arguing that the state's public schools are constitutionally underfunded.
He also concluded that the
Appellant was a vexatious litigant, and made an order requiring that the
Appellant obtain leave
before filing any legal proceeding or legal document.
On the basis of the facts as stated above, it was clear that the officer had complied with some but not all of these information requirements
before searching the
appellant.
[31] In Conway, the
appellant had a long history of disciplinary proceedings with the Law Society which is somewhat analogous to the case
before me.
This was the most complex WTO dispute ever
before the panel or
appellant body.
The
appellant had planned to demonstrate for between two and three hours
before collecting her baby from a crêche.
Liaising with the local authority
before a hearing can also resolve many of the
appellant's concerns without the need to go through the Tribunal.
I was the first private lawyer to represent countries, in this case 77 countries from the ACP group,
before the panel and
appellant body of the WTO in the very long running and famous banana dispute.
Shortly
before the deceased died, the wife of the deceased (called as one of the witnesses) claimed that her deceased husband had informed her on his sick bed that it was the
Appellant who attacked him with acid.
By ruling that the College's witness was not qualified to give opinion evidence relating to circular liquid retaining storage structures, or about the relevant standard of practice, «the Discipline Committee excluded the only independent expert evidence tendered
before it on the standard of practice applicable to the
Appellants» [33].
He has participated in matters
before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
appellant courts as well as various administrative tribunals.
The issue
before the Court is whether the
appellant, NNPC, should have to put up a further $ 100m security in the English enforcement proceedings, as a condition of being entitled to advance a good arguable defence that enforcement should be refused under the Arbitration Act 1996, s 103 (3).
In Mulholland,
before the hearing of an appeal, it became clear that assumptions about the cost of the
appellant's nursing care were wrong.
Noting that Boychyn made the comments
before proceeding to trial, convicting Jagtoo of speeding, and fining him $ 259, Beninger ruled there was «an appearance that bias may have been exhibited towards the
appellant.»
«Whether on the evidence allowed
before the court an offence of outraging public decency had been committed, as no one other than the
appellant was shown to be aware of what he was doing when he was filming.»
Charter of Rights: The
appellant pleaded guilty to charges relating to incest and child pornography committed
before 2012.
However, these were inapplicable in the
appellant's situation since Mr Doyle's tenancy was granted
before the material trigger date of 1 April 2012.
the
Appellant had no reason to believe anything other than that the recommendation to the Minister in his case would be made by the first Independent Merits Reviewer
before whom he had an oral hearing.
But in circumstances where the
appellant accepted the invitation to participate in an oral hearing
before the first reviewer, and in the absence of any evidence to suggest that he would have responded differently if invited to attend a further interview
before the second respondent, I would infer that it is more likely than not that the
appellant would have sought an oral hearing
before the second respondent if he had been told that the first reviewer by whom he was originally interviewed had been replaced (pars.
The
appellant asserts that the Government's actions were targeted to stop Trillium's offshore wind project
before Trillium's financing was in place in order to deprive Trillium of the resources to contest the Government's decision to cancel the wind projects in Ontario.»
Although the facts
before the tribunals below were no longer determinative of the
appellant's claim, the secretary of state declined to argue that the appeal raised issues of academic interest only.
The first arises from comments made by the trial judge after the
appellant had been examined - in - chief but
before she was cross-examined.
It is quite clear here that the trial judge committed himself to an adverse assessment of the evidence of the
appellant in isolation and
before hearing the conclusion of her evidence and
before hearing the submissions of counsel.
The
appellant made use of this licence to sell the hide of his adversary of the year
before to a licensed dealer for a price of $ 200.
The narrow question
before us in this appeal then is whether the isolated sale for food of a bear hide obtained by the
appellant fortuitously as the result of an act of self - defence is something that the government of Alberta is entitled to penalize under the Wildlife Act.
The
appellants in the proceedings
before the Estonian Riigigohus (Supreme Court) are an Estonian - established company, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ (BOÜ), which does the majority of its business in Sweden, and one of its employees, Ms Ilsjan.
BACKGROUND: The
Appellant, Colleen Tarr, was married to Michael Tarr for 38 years
before the two separated in July 2002.
Perhaps anticipating that eventuality,
before this court the
appellant changed tack somewhat and submitted that he was duped by his clients and should, consequently, have at most been found guilty of the lesser offence of failing to be on guard against being so duped instead of the more serious offence of participating or knowingly assisting in dishonest or fraudulent conduct.
After the July 4 announcement, the
appellant claims the shares jumped from $ 35.15 to $ 39.50, about 12 %; and the call options from $ 0.17 the day
before to $ 1.90, an increase of over 1000 %.
On this issue, the
appellants argued that the proposed appeal would not unduly hinder the progress of Nortel's CCAA proceedings, as main steps and issues remained to be finalized
before distributions to creditors could be made.
Does it prevent
Appellant from being tried - and having an equally fair trial (see Statute of the International Tribunal, art. 21)-
before an international tribunal?
Appellant's Brief in support of the motion
before the Trial Chamber went into further details which he set down under three headings:
[2] The
appellants brought a motion under Rule 21.01 (1)(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure [3] for a determination
before trial of whether the defence of absolute privilege should be extended to protect statements made in municipal council meetings.
The
Appellant attended the hearing and was represented by solicitors and counsel who acted pro bono because he had been refused funding by a decision of the Special Controls Review Panel of the Legal Aid Agency dated 7 October 2014 and sent on 14 October 2014 (six days
before the hearing).
I don't suppose the judges know anymore about it than the
appellants who come
before them,» he said.
The
appellant raised concerns about racial bias both
before and during the jury selection, but his lawyer nonetheless failed to tell Fraser that he had the right to challenge for cause.
It should be noted, in passing, that the
appellants did not pursue an alternative claim
before the Divisional Court to the effect that the provisions containing the prohibition should be «read down» under s 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) since it was common ground that the wording of CA 2003, s 321 was clear.
«[12] Regrettably, until this factual scenario is placed
before the Court, sympathetic
appellants, like Mr. Harder, shall have their appeals dismissed.
The only evidence on this issue was a GAF test score put forward by the
appellant at the hearing
before the Appeal Tribunal.
The Judge stated at [41] «Nor do I think it is fair to draw the inference that the
appellant made this calculation, namely «let's win in the Employment Tribunal, maintain
before the Employment Tribunal that my claim for damages is surely unlimited as to time, pocket those damages calculated on that basis and then come back to the High Court in due course and see how far we get with the statutory appeal».
Did the chambers judge err in granting summary dismissal of the
appellant's claim on the record that was
before the Court?
Moreover, McDonald J.A. highlights the fact that, on review of the transcript
before the Chambers Judge, the Respondent did not clearly and unequivocally advise the court at the outset of the application that he was seeking dismissal of the claim and not simply seeking dismissal of the application for summary judgment (see the exchange between
Appellant's counsel and the Chambers Judge reproduced at para. 39).