Sentences with phrase «high court decision given»

The decision was given in January 2008 which reaffirmed the High Court decision giving the courts the power to select an appropriate index to attach to a periodical payment order.

Not exact matches

On February 8 the High Court of Australia gave its decision on a stamp duty case involving one of the Dick Smith companies.

The Appellate Division, First Department court affirmed a lower court ruling that Ming should have been given notice of the adoption petition, as he was the child's other legal parent per the key 2016 state high court decision in Brooke B. v Elizabeth C.C., another instance of a bio mom trying to cut off a nonbio mom.

A spokesman for Mr Corbett insisted: «The amendments were simply to give the correct legal situation, as confirmed by the High Court, that the actual decision to leave has to be made by Parliament.

The disqualification was challenged by the PPP, which was given the opportunity by an Accra High Court to correct the errors but that decision was appealed by the EC at the Supreme Court.

Scottsdale, Arizona (CNN)- Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney said he wished the Supreme Court had given Arizona «more latitude» in its ruling on the state's controversial immigration law, saying the high court's decision undermined states» rights on the hotly - debated iCourt had given Arizona «more latitude» in its ruling on the state's controversial immigration law, saying the high court's decision undermined states» rights on the hotly - debated icourt's decision undermined states» rights on the hotly - debated issue.

On Friday, High Court Judge, Eric Kyei Baffour «quashed» a decision by the Electoral Commission in which it rejected the presidential nomination papers of Dr. Nduom and ordered the Commission to restore the rights given the presidential aspirant by law to amend and alter the nomination forms.

In a decision dated Feb. 5, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Joan Madden ordered a new hearing on a 2013 jury verdict in her court that gave five mesothelioma victims represented by Weitz a total of $ 190 million — the highest award of its kind at the Court Justice Joan Madden ordered a new hearing on a 2013 jury verdict in her court that gave five mesothelioma victims represented by Weitz a total of $ 190 million — the highest award of its kind at the court that gave five mesothelioma victims represented by Weitz a total of $ 190 million — the highest award of its kind at the time.

Mead says it's unclear how the U.S. Supreme Court would side on states neglecting more stringent discrimination protections, given that the high court's 2002 decision upholding Ohio vouchers in Zelman v. Simmons - Harris stated that voucher recipients can not be defined by religion and that they have a «genuine choice» between religious and non-religious schCourt would side on states neglecting more stringent discrimination protections, given that the high court's 2002 decision upholding Ohio vouchers in Zelman v. Simmons - Harris stated that voucher recipients can not be defined by religion and that they have a «genuine choice» between religious and non-religious schcourt's 2002 decision upholding Ohio vouchers in Zelman v. Simmons - Harris stated that voucher recipients can not be defined by religion and that they have a «genuine choice» between religious and non-religious schools.

Given the recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to limit the extent of sports wagering in Delaware and the higher gaming tax rates that were recently legislated, we decided not to proceed with this project.

«Given that the previous Federal Court decision raised complex legal issues it was prudent for Canada to obtain a decision from a higher court.&rCourt decision raised complex legal issues it was prudent for Canada to obtain a decision from a higher court.&rcourt.»

Reversing the decision of the Court of Appeal and restoring the determination of the trial judge (upheld in the High Court on appeal) the Supreme Court concluded that the facts in the present case did give rise to an inference that the intentions of the parties (to own the property in equal beneficial shares, consistent with their legal ownership) did change when Mr Kernott acquired his own property independently of Ms Jones.

«Given some of the decisions that have come out of the Court of Appeal which have required pretty high standards for employers in terms of drafting employment agreement language, it was encouraging to see the court unanimously uphold the language that the parties negotiated in this case,» says Susan Crawford, of Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP who represented Money Mart in Kielb v. National Money Mart ComCourt of Appeal which have required pretty high standards for employers in terms of drafting employment agreement language, it was encouraging to see the court unanimously uphold the language that the parties negotiated in this case,» says Susan Crawford, of Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP who represented Money Mart in Kielb v. National Money Mart Comcourt unanimously uphold the language that the parties negotiated in this case,» says Susan Crawford, of Crawford Chondon & Partners LLP who represented Money Mart in Kielb v. National Money Mart Company.

The US government appealed against Judge Coleman's decision, but today it was upheld by the High Court, which gave the US authorities a deadline to assure the court that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order&raCourt, which gave the US authorities a deadline to assure the court that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order&racourt that, if Giese was found guilty, «there will be no attempt to make him the subject of a civil commitment order».

In a decision released yesterday, HM Attorney General v Davey [2013] EWHC 2317 (Admin), the High Court of England and Wales gave leave for applications for committal orders for contempt of court against two men, each of whom had sat as a juror in a criminal case and each of whom had used the internet in contravention of instructions not to dCourt of England and Wales gave leave for applications for committal orders for contempt of court against two men, each of whom had sat as a juror in a criminal case and each of whom had used the internet in contravention of instructions not to dcourt against two men, each of whom had sat as a juror in a criminal case and each of whom had used the internet in contravention of instructions not to do so.

To this point I have been discussing federal reference questions, but in Canadian usage the provinces have also given themselves the parallel power vis - à - vis their own provincial highest courts, with an option of appealing that decision to the Supreme Court itself.

Given the Sixth Circuit's public dissension in recent years, including several sharply worded opinions and allegations of improprieties in death penalty cases, I suspect this case would have received more attention had it not been overshadowed by the close of the Supreme Court's term and several high - profile decisions.»

The Court of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringeCourt of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringecourt in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringement.

Giving what appears to be the first ever decision of the High Court on the topic, the judgment reminds local authorities in England of the need for a proper analysis of the educational needs of young people with learning difficulties and the provision available to meet them.

The second challenge was dismissed in October 2014 by the High Court, but permission was given for the decisions in both Unison 1 and Unison 2 to come before the Court of Appeal.

Question 4 asks directly: «Given the facts found by the High Court in relation to US law, if personal data is transferred from the EU to the US under the SCC Decision does this violate the rights of individuals under Articles 7 and / or 8 of the Charter?»

David G. Savage of The Los Angeles Times provides a news update headlined «High court gives sentencing judges more power; The justices» decision allows for greater ease in setting lower prison terms under strict federal cocaine laws.»

If I could claim to have fully considered the sum of your collective contributions concerning stare decisis as emphasizing the need for judges at first instance to be fully informed of the applicable law and to follow it, then I would have expanded my speculative musings to suggest that notoriety of a lower court decision is what gives it the potential to muscle its way into gaining equal consideration alongside authoritative higher court rulings when the issue before the court is novel.

UK courts will, however, remain bound by decisions of higher UK courts, even those which resulted from CJEU guidance (absent a contrary view given upon appeal to the Supreme Court in the UK).

A recent High Court decision (Zayo Group International Ltd v Ainger and others [2017] EWHC 2542 (Comm)-RRB- has delivered a pertinent reminder of the importance of complying with the strict terms of notice provisions in a sale and purchase agreement, both in terms of the contents of those notices and how they are served, and of giving careful consideration to the effects of limitations of liability in a sale and purchase agreement.

The Native Title Act 1993 (Cth) was the government's legislative response to the High Court's decision in Mabo (No. 2) that held Australian law recognises a form of Indigenous title to the land given by the traditional laws and customs of the original inhabitants, Australia's Indigenous peoples.

The Yorta Yorta decision demonstrates how the High Court's construction of sovereignty continues to limit the recognition that native title is able to give to the profound relationships between Indigenous people and their land.

The Blue Mud Bay decision from the High Court stands as one of the most significant affirmations of Indigenous legal rights in recent Australian history... The High Court's decision gives Australia the opportunity, belatedly, to catch up with Canada and New Zealand in building co-operative structures between government, business and Indigenous peoples in commercial fisheries... [120]

While the High Court's decision in the Mabo case rectified the failure of Australian society to legally recognise Indigenous culture and law, the issue which remains to be resolved is the meaning and value that contemporary Australian society will give to Indigenous culture.

The High Court decision in the Mabo case in 1992 and the Native Title Act brought about a fundamental shift in law and government policy, giving way to the growing recognition of the rights and interests of Aboriginal people to their country.

Given that the decision in Ward had already been appealed to the High Court, the legal status of native title over such lands was (and is at the time of writing) still an open question.