Sentences with phrase «bound by the courts of law»

Bound by the courts of law and box - office expectations to adhere to a very limited perception of what our hero was capable of accomplishing, Never Say Never Again explicitly states its desire to ladle out «some gratuitous sex and violence,» which it does — in the most blank, perfunctory way possible.

Not exact matches

In the event that we are not able to resolve a dispute, we each agree that any and all disputes, controversies, or claims arising under, arising out of, or relating in any way to this agreement, or the contractual relationship established by this agreement (whether in contract, tort, or under any statute, regulation, ordinance, or any other source of law) shall be resolved on an individual basis through binding arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association, in accordance with the American Arbitration Association's rules for arbitration of consumer - related disputes (accessible at https://www.adr.org/aaa/faces/rules)(except that you may assert individual claims in small claims court, if your claims qualify).

This disclaimer and any dispute arising from or in relation thereto, including disputes regarding its legality, validity, binding effect (including adoption) and enforceability, shall be settled by the district court of Lyngby, Copenhagen, Denmark in accordance with and subject exclusively to the laws of Denmark.

The Attorney General and the entire Government of Ghana are bound by law to obey the order of the African Court on Human and Peoples» Rights.

Mr. Woyome state «The Attorney General and the entire Government of Ghana are bound by law to obey the order of the African Court on Human and Peoples» Rights; any violation of it will be unlawful under Ghanaian laws.»

Washington — School districts that were once racially segregated by law should remain bound by court desegregation orders until every wrong caused by the separation of races is cured, a lawyer for black schoolchildren in Oklahoma City told the U.S. Supreme Court last court desegregation orders until every wrong caused by the separation of races is cured, a lawyer for black schoolchildren in Oklahoma City told the U.S. Supreme Court last Court last week.

Except as expressly provided herein, any claim, dispute or controversy (whether based upon contract; tort, intentional or otherwise; constitution; statute; common law; or equity and whether pre-existing, present or future), including initial claims, counter-claims, cross-claims and thirdparty claims, arising from or relating to (i) the Card; (ii) any service relating to the Card; (iii) the marketing of the Card; (iv) this Cardholder Agreement, including the validity, enforceability, interpretation, scope, or application of the Agreement and this arbitration provision (except for the prohibition on class or other non-individual claims, which shall be for a court to decide); and (v) any other agreement or instrument relating to the Card or any such service («Claim») shall be decided, upon the election of you or the Bank (or Green Dot Corporation or the Bank's agents, employees, successors, representatives, affiliated companies, or assigns), by binding arbitration pursuant to this arbitration provision and the applicable rules and procedures of the arbitration administrator in effect at the time the Claim is filed.

On March 29th 2016, the ACCC announced that the Australian Federal Court had ruled in their favour in the lawsuit, stating that certain sections of Valve's «Steam subscriber agreement» and «Steam refund policy» we're in violation of Australian Consumer Law, and that by making their goods available to Australians, they were conducting business on Australian soil, and are thus bound by our laws.

We are asking the court to declare that the government is bound by the law and must be held accountable to the will of Parliament,» lawyer Chris Paliare said.

It's also highly probable, the CIPD claims, that although the UK will not be forced to adopt any new EU regulation after it has ceased to be a member of the Union, that it will remain bound by precedents set by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and European Court of Justice (ECJ), which would mean there would be little in the way of worries surrounding large changes in the law.

In a short judgment (concerned with the extent to which courts were bound by Privy Council decisions) Lord Neuberger said: «In a common law system, where the law is in some areas made, and the law is in virtually all areas developed, by judges, the doctrine of precedent, or as it is sometimes known stare decisis, is fundamental.

I would qualify this final statement with the opinion that the mere act of providing a binding interpretation of EU law on the basis of the questions asked to it by the District Court would not in itself be to err, which is all that the Court «has been asked to [do]» at this stage.

The fact that Canada and the United States ostensibly are constitutional democracies signifies that «the rule of law» means indigenous territorial sovereignty continues to bind all courts of those countries unless and until the constitutions have been amended by the people, by constitutional legislation, pursuant to the amendment formulas made express and explicit in each constitution.

In the light of this, the Court repeated what it had said in Åkerberg Franssson: Based on Article 51 (1) of the Charter read in the light of the Explanations to the Charter, Member States were only bound by EU fundamental rights in respect of matters «covered by EU law» (para 22).

Whether the law society is bound by the top court's decision in BCCT was a major part of the today's debate.

However, though national authorities and courts of all Member States of the EU are still bound by the ECHR and other relevant international law when applying national immigration and asylum law, their scope of application may not reach as far as the Charter would have reached, and at present is regarded as applicable to potential applicants for international protection that have not yet entered the territories of the states bound by them.

In the meantime, companies that were transferring data to the US under the Safe Harbour (including all Internet Giants) have to find creative solutions to meet the CJEU criteria as the use of the alternative instruments foreseen by the Data Protection Directive (contracts, binding corporate rules) is exposed to similar criticism from national courts, or at least to greater scrutiny from DPAs with regard to the mechanisms of protection installed to prevent (disproportionate) access to the data by US law enforcement authorities.

The provision continues by stating that in «doing so, the Tribunal shall follow the prevailing interpretation given to the domestic law by the courts or authorities of that Party and any meaning given to domestic law by the Tribunal shall not be binding upon the courts or the authorities of that Party.»

Neither did the ECJ accept the pleas that the General Court erred in law by stating that it was appropriate to refer only to the Charter of Fundamental Rights and not the ECHR (paras. 43 - 48), that the right to property can not be extended to the protection of commercial interests (paras. 49 - 63) and that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples does not have binding force (paras. 64 - 69).

The Court found that the (unique) solution imagined by the Commission to compensate for the lack of safeguards established by US law does not conform to such requirements as the «Principles» only bind US companies that have self - certify and not US public authorities (Article 1 of the Safe Harbour Decision).

In arbitration, disputes are resolved with binding effect by a person or persons acting in a judicial manner in private, rather than by a national court of law that would have jurisdiction unless the parties have prior agreement to exclude it.

My comments start from three propositions which are rooted in constitutional theory: (1) absent constitutional objection, legislation binds; (2) administrative decision - makers enabled by statute can only go so far as their home statute allows (3) it is a court's job, on any standard of review, to enforce those boundaries; in American terminology, to «say what the law is» (Marbury v Madison; Edmonton East, at para 21).

The Court brushed aside concerns that state - court rulings in patent cases would result in inconsistent development of patent law by noting that, «In resolving thenonhypothetical patent questions [federal] cases present, the federal courts are of course not bound by state court case - within - a-case rulings.&rCourt brushed aside concerns that state - court rulings in patent cases would result in inconsistent development of patent law by noting that, «In resolving thenonhypothetical patent questions [federal] cases present, the federal courts are of course not bound by state court case - within - a-case rulings.&rcourt rulings in patent cases would result in inconsistent development of patent law by noting that, «In resolving thenonhypothetical patent questions [federal] cases present, the federal courts are of course not bound by state court case - within - a-case rulings.&rcourt case - within - a-case rulings.»

Lower courts are bound by the rulings of higher courts as the interpret the law.

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge made an error of law by ignoring the legal doctrine that an agreement that is signed in counterparts forms a binding agreement as demonstrated in Foley v R., [2000] 4 CTC 2016 (TCC).1

In so doing, the Tribunal «shall follow the prevailing interpretation given to the domestic law by the courts and authorities of that Party and any meaning given to domestic law by the Tribunal shall not be binding upon the courts or the authorities of that Party» (Article 8.31 CETA).

«I am not prepared to adopt, as the defendant's argue, a blanket principle that an Ontario court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a common law action to recognize and enforce a foreign judgment against an out - of - jurisdiction judgment debtor in the absence of a showing that the defendant has some real and substantial connection to Ontario or currently possesses assets in Ontario... No jurisprudence binding on me has expressly placed a gloss on that ability to assume jurisdiction by requiring the plaintiff to demonstrate that the non-resident judgment debtor defendant otherwise has a real and substantial connection with Ontario.»

In the UAE there are just three ways to legally terminate a contract, as provided for in Article 267 of the UAE Civil Code which states that «if a contract is valid and binding, it shall not be permissible for either of the contracting parties to resile from it, or vary or cancel it, save by mutual consent, or an order of the court, or under a provision of the law».

Rather, the Court's decision focuses on the unlawful nature of the President's attempt to effectively «make law,» by binding the state court to the World Court ruling without adequate authorization from the Constitution or CongCourt's decision focuses on the unlawful nature of the President's attempt to effectively «make law,» by binding the state court to the World Court ruling without adequate authorization from the Constitution or Congcourt to the World Court ruling without adequate authorization from the Constitution or CongCourt ruling without adequate authorization from the Constitution or Congress.

My understanding of Achmea is that the Court considers it contrary to EU law for a MS to enter into an agreement which may cause it to be bound by decisions of a tribunal if (i) the tribunal may take decisions affecting EU law in that state — which is almost inevitable for any trade or investment tribunal, and (ii) it can not refer questions to the Court, and (iii) there is no possibility to substantively review the decisions in the MS courts.

The Court's reasoning in Achmea confirms that the threat to the autonomy is not averted by the CETA provision that aligns the interpretation of EU law by the arbitral tribunal to the «prevailing interpretation» of the CJEU and excludes that the CJEU is bound by the tribunal's interpretations.

The Institute of Family Law Arbitrators has a clearly defined process, which is endorsed by the courts in S v S [2014] EWHC 7 (Fam), [2014] All ER (D) 63 (Jan) as leading to a binding court order in almost all cases.

54 From time to time there have been statements of some members of this Court that have been taken to suggest that other courts are bound by this Court's considered ruling on a point of law, even a point not strictly necessary to the conclusion.

From the Latin, «to stand by things decided», the concept of a legal system in which lower courts are bound by the determination of higher courts concerning questions of law leaves little room for the lower courts of a single jurisdiction to influence appreciation of the law across the country.

Protecting lives The objection to the principle formulated by the Divisional Court was that it distracted attention from what, applying well - settled principles of public law, was the right question: whether or not, in deciding that the public interest in pursuing an important investigation into alleged bribery was outweighed by the public interest in protecting the lives of British citizens, the director had made a decision outside the lawful bounds of the discretion entrusted to him by Parliament.

Is STARE DECISIS (precedent) still part of the law in Ontario?The herein issue was dealt with in 2001, by the SCC, in a finding that the Charter does not apply to PRIVATE entities (TWU) and the Charter remains unchanged!The LSUC and lower Courts are bound by this precedent!Furthermore, the LSUC should not have proceeded herein, without specific authorization from a general Referendum and, at least for the sake of appearances, ON THIS ISSUE, the Bench, should have all been from out of Province, having absolutely no connection to the LSUC, as former Members, Benchers, etc..

The law declared by the SCI is binding on all the courts in India [3] thereby reflecting the incorporation of the doctrine of precedent, (as understood in English jurisprudence).

The court essentially said that contract law applies and to be enforceable a changed contract requires that both parties know of and accept any changes — this despite the wording of the revised terms, purporting to make them binding simply by unilateral fiat.

Put differently, the corollary of the presumption of compliance is that «courts will apply the law laid down by statute or common law, even if it is inconsistent with a treaty which is binding upon Canada.»

Differently than the procedure for preliminary rulings before the CJEU, which allows the latter Court to use a wider margin of appreciation when it assesses the admissibility of the referring order and to rephrase its scope and content in the light of EU law (as it did with the request from the Tribunale di Cuneo that started the Taricco saga), the ICC is more strictly bound by the correspondence between such order and the final ruling.

The Supreme Court adopted the Court of Appeal's description of the position under standard contract law (see Lord Clarke's judgment at para 20): ordinarily where the terms are in writing and there are no oral terms then the written terms will, prima facie, represent the whole of the parties» agreement; the parties are bound by the written terms when they sign the contract; the written terms will stand unless they do not accurately reflect what was agreed because of a mistake (generally common to the parties); and no terms which conflict with the express terms can be implied into the contract.

In this class of cases, we think the rule of action which should govern the civil courts, founded in a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before them.

However, the case law is binding on me, and can only be construed differently by the Court of Appeal: see Baart v. Kumar, (1985), 66 B.C.L.R. 1 (C.A.); Si v. Enns,, 2001 BCSC 1120.

Defend the conduct not by attacking the jurisdiction of the Law Society, but by compelling the Law Society to exercise its parallel disciplinary jurisdiction to the fullest, re-litigating facts if necessary because the court proceedings are not binding on the Law Society's discipline process.

Therefore, we must not only respect the law - making role of administrative decision makers, but also the co-ordinate law making role of the courts — to ensure that administrative decisions are consistent with the objectives and purposes of the legislation, the bounds set by the legislation, and other fundamental legal principles.

In addition, the Competition Act 1998 (as amended) provides that findings of fact made by the CMA during the course of an investigation (which have not been appealed, or which have been confirmed on appeal) which are relevant to an issue arising in certain competition law proceedings before the High Court (or the CAT) are binding on the parties to those proceedings, unless the court (or the CAT) orders otherCourt (or the CAT) are binding on the parties to those proceedings, unless the court (or the CAT) orders othercourt (or the CAT) orders otherwise.

Pursuant to Article 402 of the Taiwan Code of Civil Procedure, a final and binding judgment or ruling rendered by a foreign court will be recognised except for certain situations, one of which is violating due process of law or the public policy of Taiwan.

Therefore, an interpretation of EU law by an arbitral tribunal in an extra-EU context may be binding under international law, yet it is not authoritative, i.e. binding, under EU law, as EU courts are not required to follow it.

Upon the whole, it must be admitted that the current of authority both in England and in this country is in accordance with the law as declared by the courts of Missouri in the case before us, and we think the court below was not only right, but bound to follow it.

A final and binding award, therefore, precludes the successful party from bringing the same claim (s) again, either in a fresh arbitration or before the national courts, and precludes both parties from contradicting the decision of the arbitral tribunal on a question of law or fact decided by the award (Sun Life Insurance Company of Canada and others v The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 675; Injazat Technology Capital Ltd v Najafi [2012] EWHC 4171 (Comm)-RRB-.