Sentences with phrase «court scrutinised»

Private law proceedings generally do not see the child as a party, with the appointment of a guardian nor see the court scrutinise, sanction (or not) a thorough, detailed care plan for the subject child and parents are subjected to merits - tested publicly funded legal advice and representation in contrast to a non-merits tested equivalent in care proceedings.

Abbott v Richardson [2006] EWHC 1291 (Ch) saw the court scrutinise the exact words recorded in a solicitor's note of his meeting with the testator when he asked about undue influence.

Not exact matches

The claims and cross claims will make for a riveting court case and no doubt pique investor's interests as the success of a2 — and the surge in its share price from 55 cents to almost $ 2 in the past year — rests largely on its health claims, which will be scrutinised in open court.

This means that any extension would not only be: - subject to a specific case being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions; - subject every seven days up to the agreed limit to the approval of a High Court Judge; - subject to the regular report of the independent reviewer with an annual debate in parliament; - but also be subject in each and every instance to a specific parliamentary notification procedure, to a further statement to parliament on the individual case, a review on the specific case by the independent reviewer and with the provision for this House to scrutinise and debate the report and all the circumstances.

As Peers prepare to scrutinise the EU (Withdrawal) Bill later this month, Mercer also busted the myth that the CJEU has direct jurisdiction over UK courts.

David Burrows questions why magistrates» courts are reluctant to scrutinise liability orders

Whilst Denza scrutinises the relationship between the Court and the international legal order, Michael Bobek assesses the CJEU's legitimacy through the eyes of the national courts.

The successful Birmingham pilot scheme is extended to every mercantile and construction court in October this year and the vision is that ultimately every multi-track case, whatever the subject matter, will be scrutinised with care at the outset with the parties being given thorough guidance as to what steps and expenditure is seen by the court as proportionate or not.

The court will scrutinise all the suspicious circumstances with a disputed will when dealing with allegations around want of knowledge and approval.

The practice of the Human Rights Committee with respect to State reporting obligations indicates its tendency to scrutinise closely «special» or «extraordinary» criminal courts in order to ascertain whether they ensure compliance with the fair trial requirements of Article 14.

The judgment itself provides some guidance as to how Courts will scrutinise local government's decisions, but it also leaves some legal questions unanswered.

This could arguably be due to a fear that all the recent changes mean that potential applications need to be scrutinised in a way that they were not prior to the changes and so LAs are «holding - off» until they are absolutely certain that an application to the court is necessitated.

In most instances in criminal cases PII is claimed in respect of unused material so as to prevent material being scrutinised by the court and relied on by litigants.

In such cases, courts and arbitral tribunals are likely to scrutinise the contracts carefully in order to determine the scope of the arbitration agreement (in Trust Risk Group SpA v AmTrust Europe Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 437, the argument was unsuccessful; in C v D1, D2 and D3 [2015] EWHC 2126 (Comm), the argument was successful).

Although he accepted that there is no general duty to give reasons at common law (at para 51), Lord Carnwath took the view, following R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531, that reasons will be required where they are necessary to permit the courts to scrutinise the underlying decision effectively:

Tugenhadt J, however, held that the order «contained derogations from the principle of open justice» and should be scrutinised by the court.

Not only did the judge denounce the notion that a prosecutor could legitimately recommend a sentence to the court based on antecedent negotiations with the defendant it also held that the court should consider the terms of the deal itself: «A court must rigorously scrutinise in open court in the interests of transparency and good governance, the basis of that plea and to see whether it reflects public interest.»

Where that is not possible or practical then the defence may remind a court that it does not have to give any weight to hearsay evidence that can not be scrutinised either by the defence or by the court.

The paper made the case for greater openness of family courts, arguing that this would result in better understanding of the work undertaken, increase the ability of the public to scrutinise the decisions and lead to a greater confidence in the decision - making process.

courts must scrutinise very carefully claims that the defendant's conduct is sufficiently oppressive, persistent, or unpleasant to cross the line from acceptable conduct into harassment and must ensure that any relief sought, while restraining objectionable conduct, goes no further than is absolutely necessary in interfering with article 10 rights.

This is especially so where the international court directly scrutinises domestic court decisions.