Sentences with phrase «courts against the applicant»

Consequent to the above directives, we find it necessary and expedient to make a further order to stay all court proceedings pending in the various High Courts against the applicant by some of the disqualified presidential candidates on the same issue of having been denied a hearing to enable the EC to carry out its mandate in line with these orders.

Not exact matches

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER The Windsor Court Hotel is an equal opportunity employer and does not discriminate against associates or job applicants on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, national origin, handicap, veteran status, or any other condition protected by applicable state or federal laws, except where a bona fide occupational qualification applies.

The federal courts found the Grand Street projects themselves, run by Silver allies, discriminated against black and Latino applicants in a suit that named Ralph Lippman, the father of the chief judge, as a defendant.

Staten Island Republicans convinced a state Apellate Division court to uphold an an injunction against Mayor Bill de Blasio's plan to dump the personal files of applicants to the city's municipal identification program, files believed to include the personal information of thousands of undocumented immigrants — prompting the administration to announce it would no longer hold on to any personal records of IDNYC participants at all.

Supervising High Court Judge, Dr. Richmond Osei - Hwere awarded a GHS 1,000 against the applicant.

«All other averments relating to fraudulent activities against the applicant remain largely in the realm of imagination of the respondent and unproved as there is no such document before the court.

The PPP took the case to court seeking «an order directed against the 1st respondent in her capacity as returning officer for presidential elections to grant the applicant the opportunity to amend and alter the one anomaly found in his nomination papers as well as accept his nomination papers as amended or altered to enable him contest as a presidential candidate for the 7th December 2016 elections.»

The high court will also use an employment - discrimination case from the private sector to clarify whether Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the main federal job - discrimination law, covers retaliation by employers against former employees as well as job applicants...

The applicant appealed against this decision to the Gothenburg Administrative Court.

In a civil application, the applicant requests the Court determine a point of law against the respondent.

Crime Victims Debt Collection (SB 1866 / PA 99 - 0444): Amends the Crime Victims Compensation Act to prevent a vendor who has been provided notice of a claim filed under the Act from engaging in debt collection activities against the applicant until the Court of Claims awards compensation for the debt and the payment is processed.

This case relates to whether a solicitor acting for an applicant can be found personally liable to pay the costs of the respondent following the court's refusal to grant an application to issue a witness summons against the respondent.

The court held that the applicant has no iota of locus standi to bring the action against the AG being that the applicant was not a party to the withdrawn case and not representing the complainant.

In conclusion, in the absence of a prevailing community interest being put forward by the Italian Government, against which to balance the applicants» momentous interests as identified above, and in the light of domestic courts» conclusions on the matter which remained unheeded, the Court finds that the Italian Government have overstepped their margin of appreciation and failed to fulfil their positive obligation to ensure that the applicants have available a specific legal framework providing for the recognition and protection of their same - sex unions.

The court was concerned that the UK policy set the threshold so high against the applicants from the outset «that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test by the secretary of state or by the domestic courts» because the applicants had to demonstrate as a condition precedent to the application of the policy, that the deprivation of artificial insemination facilities might prevent conception altogether.

(6) Where a local authority refuse an application for a licence under section 37 of this Act or revoke or, otherwise than on the application of the holder, vary such a licence they shall state their grounds for doing so in writing to the applicant or, as the case may be, the holder of the licence; and the applicant or holder may appeal to a magistrates» court or, in Scotland, the sheriff, against the refusal, revocation or variation, and against any condition subject to which the licence is granted or any approval is given, not being a condition which the local authority are required to impose.

The issues in this application were whether the applicants were entitled to summary judgment on their harassment claim and whether the court should grant a permanent injunction pursuant to s. 3 (3) of the 1997 Protection Against Harassment Act.

Scott Hay - Bartlem of Brisbane law firm Cooper Grace Ward says: «Applicants have long taken comfort from Singer v Berghouse (1994), in which the High Court ruled that costs orders will not be made against unsuccessful applicants but that everyone's costs will be paid from the estate — particularly if a cost order would have a detrimental effect on an applicant's financial positiApplicants have long taken comfort from Singer v Berghouse (1994), in which the High Court ruled that costs orders will not be made against unsuccessful applicants but that everyone's costs will be paid from the estate — particularly if a cost order would have a detrimental effect on an applicant's financial positiapplicants but that everyone's costs will be paid from the estate — particularly if a cost order would have a detrimental effect on an applicant's financial position.»

C v C: Chris was instructed on behalf of the applicants in this matter, which involved an application to the High Court arising out of an order which had been made against the applicant pursuant to the Evidence (Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions) Act 1975.

However, it is important to note that Justice Crighton's decision did not only follow the Alberta Rules of Court, but also relied on Alberta precedent for awarding costs against an unsuccessful self - represented habeas corpus applicant.

In Noel Douglas Conway v The Secretary of State for Justice [2018] EWCA Civ 16, the Court of Appeal gave an unusually detailed judgment granting permission to appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court in Conway, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2017] EWHC 640, refusing permission for the applicant to judicially review the criminalisation of physician - assisted suicide under the Suicide Act 1961.

Michael Wilson & Partners Limited v Emmott: [2011] EWHC 1441 (Comm) Acted for the applicant in the Commercial Court challenging an arbitration award under ss 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 involving allegations of diversion of corporate opportunities and secret commissions against a partner of a law firm.

The recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision in Laffin v. Association of Professional Geoscientists of Ontario, 2012 ONCA 846 provides a sober reminder to professional regulatory bodies that in assessing applicants for registration, they are confined to assessing applications against the particular requirements set out in their enabling statutes and bylaws.

The Court of Appeal, in commenting on the safeness of the conviction, had listed the other «overwhelming» evidence against the applicant.

The court considered that even if the applicants» Art 8 complaint was before the secretary of state and the Court of Appeal, the policy set the threshold so high against them from the outset that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test by the secretary of state or by the domestic courts in their case, as required by the Convencourt considered that even if the applicants» Art 8 complaint was before the secretary of state and the Court of Appeal, the policy set the threshold so high against them from the outset that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test by the secretary of state or by the domestic courts in their case, as required by the ConvenCourt of Appeal, the policy set the threshold so high against them from the outset that it did not allow a balancing of the competing individual and public interests and a proportionality test by the secretary of state or by the domestic courts in their case, as required by the Convention.

While there was no intention to mislead the court, the extent of the non disclosure was such that the court would have set aside the order appointing the provisional liquidator (had the court not already struck out the claims against the applicants).

[10] This Court has no jurisdiction to suspend the precedential value of Grant Thornton Ltd. v. Alberta Energy Regulator and introduce another legal regime — the one in place before Chief Justice Wittmann released his judgment — for the governance of other bankrupts, receivers and trustees in bankruptcy and secured creditors for a period commencing with the date of pronouncement of any stay order and ending with the date the Supreme Court of Canada either resolves an appeal against this Court's judgment or dismisses the applicants» leave - to - appeal application.

An issued patent would be subject to retroactive scrutiny by the courts in relation to the submissions made by an applicant to the Patent Office during prosecution (generally many years prior), judged against unknown criteria.

The Respondent made several submissions against awarding damages, but the court found attempts to shift responsibility for the error to the Applicant «offensive.»

Facts: The applicant Mother filed an affidavit in support of her motion for advance (interim) funding in respect of the appeal of the respondent, the father, from the order of Chappel J. dismissing his challenge to the jurisdiction of Ontario courts to adjudicate Mother's claims against him for custody, child support, and spousal support.

The Act, whose stated «purpose... is to provide safer communities by creating administrative and court processes that can be used to address and prevent cyberbullying,» (s. 2) makes it possible for persons who consider that they are being the victims of cyber-bullying (or for their parents and police officers, if they are minors) to apply for an order that can include prohibitions against its target communicating with or about the applicant, or using specified electronic services or devices.

Researching of detailed information regarding civil actions against the applicant, plaintiff or defendant in county superior courts.

This system is an Adversarial System and proves itself to be so with Family Court documents all saying Kramer vs. Kramer, Applicant vs. Respondant or Mother vs. Father which ultimately means one parent «against» the other!

Note: When an applicant files one of these certificates under subsection (7), the court may take the kind of certificate into account in considering whether to make an order referring to parties to family dispute resolution (see section 13C) and in determining whether to award costs against a party (see section 117).

(1) A court having jurisdiction under this Part must not, at any time, make, revive or vary a child maintenance order in relation to a child on the application of a person (the applicant) against, or in favour of, a person (the respondent) if an application could properly be made, at that time, by the applicant under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 for the respondent to be assessed in respect of the costs of the child, or vice versa.

His Honour's reasoning suggests that in order to establish a native title right to control access, Aboriginal people would be required to demonstrate before a court not only the existence of a traditional right to control access to their land and the exercise of this right by the applicants, but also that the native title applicants and their forebears, in the face of inordinate risks, asserted this right consistently against non-Indigenous people through the post-sovereignty period.

123 (1) Subject to subsection (2), all information supplied and all records and things produced to the real estate council, a hearing committee, the superintendent, the insurance corporation or the compensation fund corporation with respect to a licensee, a former licensee or an applicant for a licence are privileged to the same extent as if they were supplied or produced in proceedings in a court, and no action may be brought against a person as a consequence of the person having supplied or produced them.

(**) No record of official sanctions involving unprofessional conduct is intended to mean that the Board / Association may consider judgments within the past three (3) years of violations of (1) civil rights laws; (2) real estate license laws; (3) or other laws prohibiting unprofessional conduct against the applicant rendered by the courts or other lawful authorities.

(1) Subject to (2), all information supplied and all records and things produced to the real estate council, a hearing committee, the superintendent, the insurance corporation or the compensation fund corporation with respect to a licensee, a former licensee or an applicant for a licence are privileged to the same extent as if they were supplied or produced in proceedings in a court, and no action may be brought against a person as a consequence of the person having supplied or produced them.