Sentences with phrase «tribunal heard evidence»

The tribunal heard evidence from a number of practising Christians in addition to the claimant.

Not exact matches

At a tribunal hearing in Adelaide on Tuesday, the competition regulator tried to stall Murray Goulburn's application on the basis that as more investors accepted Saputo's bid, it had become more difficult to gather evidence.

In particular, the rules encourage members to accept a predetermined sanction for given acts of misconduct rather than undergoing a full tribunal, but establish an impartial panel of decision makers with clear rules for evidence and standards of proof should a full disciplinary hearing be required.

The tribunal is set to hear evidence from the security services and the government over the following days.

Historically, the LERB reviewed decisions of chiefs and presiding officers after initial investigations on a standard of review of correctness, using a de novo hearing — the appeal court refers to the lower tribunal's record to determine the facts, but will rule on the evidence and questions of law without deference (respectful submission to the judgment) to the lower tribunal's findings.

A German court reached this decision where the provisions of the 1996 English Arbitration Act agreed to by the parties granted discretion to the tribunal to schedule an oral hearing.908 A United States court held that a tribunal's decision of an issue of contract interpretation based solely on documentary evidence was not fundamentally unfair where the parties had not agreed on the applicable procedure.

Courts have similarly held that a tribunal's adjudication of a case based on documentary evidence without an oral hearing does not justify a refusal under article V (1)(d).

Bond Solon specialises in providing support for all witnesses including witnesses of fact, professional witnesses and expert witnesses giving evidence in a wide variety of legal hearings including: High Court, County Court, Magistrates Court, Crown Court, Arbitration, Employment Tribunal, other Tribunals, Coroners Court, Fatal Accident Inquiry, Public Inquiry, Planning Inquiry, Professional Conduct Hearing, through our Witness Familiarisation Service.

After consulting the parties, the tribunal may decide the dispute on the basis of documents and written evidence, with no oral hearing or examination of witnesses.

A tribunal can hear evidence about protected conversations if the actual date of termination is disputed.

The court held that the evidence before the adjudicator gave some justification for the conclusion that operations by Iraqi and Iranian agents were likely to be continuing at the time of the hearing, and that the tribunal erred in concluding otherwise.

Under Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, an «independent and impartial tribunal established by law» is one which hears the evidence itself, makes decisions itself and writes its own judgments.

When a witness sits in a Court and hears the testimony of another witness or other witnesses on a subject - matter as to which he later testifies, his evidence is open to the suggestion that it may have been made deliberately to conform, but that is a factor to be considered by the tribunal of fact and relates to the weight of the evidence.

At a tribunal hearing, the parties are provided with an opportunity to make submissions and adduce evidence to support their case.

However, this may pose some practical difficulties for tribunals in ensuring they are not influenced by the evidence they have heard.

Ideally, the process of sketching an outline should begin before the tribunal starts to hear evidence.

Doing so enables the tribunal member to understand the issues in dispute and to ask questions at the hearing which clarify the issues and the evidence upon which the reasons must be based.

General provisions (Article 17) Place of arbitration (Article 18) Language (Article 19) Statement of claim (Article 20) Statement of defence (Article 21) Amendments to the claim or defence (Article 22) Pleas as to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal (Article 23) Further written statements (Article 24) Periods of time (Article 25) Interim measures (Article 26) Evidence (Article 27) Hearings (Article 28) Experts appointed by the arbitral tribunal (Article 29) Default (Article 30) Closure of proceedings (Article 31) Waiver of right to object (Article 32)

Second, as a practical matter, the more a tribunal cedes review and organizational work to staff, the less the opportunity for tribunal members to review and to inform themselves about the evidence, the positions of the parties and the dynamic of evolving evidence during the hearing.

26 (1) The arbitral tribunal may conduct the arbitration on the basis of documents or may hold hearings for the presentation of evidence and for oral argument; however, the tribunal shall hold a hearing if a party requests it.

The tribunal also has the power to order that any evidence be given orally at the hearing (section 34 (2)(e) and (h)-RRB-.

all hearings, meetings, evidence, documents (produced or exchanged), Awards and communications shall be private and confidential as between the parties, the arbitration tribunal and the Centre.

In response to the filing of a claim with the tribunal, the doctor who is alleged to have committed medical malpractice is required to file a formal pleading called an «answer» and the tribunal is supposed to convene to hear evidence within fifteen days of the filing of the answer, though it rarely happens in practice that the tribunal meets that quickly.

It seems unlikely the tribunal itself heard or considered submissions or evidence on the general implications.

We regularly provide familiarisation sessions for witnesses who are due to give evidence in a wide variety of legal forums including but not limited to: civil courts, international arbitrations, tribunals, inquiries, criminal courts, depositions, expert determinations, select committees, coroners inquests and professional misconduct conduct hearings.

When faced with allegations of a breach, a tribunal may be required to hear evidence (in the absence of agreement of the other party that there was a breach).

An employment tribunal can hear secret evidence to ensure the cousin of a convicted terrorist has a fair hearing, the Court of Appeal has held.

However, the finding that evidence about what an employee would have done if no discrimination had taken place is generally not relevant in calculating loss makes it difficult for respondents to mitigate the risks at a quantum hearing where a tribunal has found substantively that discrimination has taken place.

Despite correctly directing itself that its role is to consider whether the view taken or opinion formed by the employer's disciplinary tribunal, and expressly is not to substitute its own view or opinion based on the evidence it reads and hears, employment tribunals regularly then go on to do just that.

If a tribunal's decision may turn on findings of fact made from conflicting evidence or on the credibility of witnesses, there may be a right to an oral hearing and cross-examination of those witnesses.

The tribunal heard both Shuter and Hatfield's evidence as to the alleged intimidatory conduct.

Consequently the tribunal refused to hear evidence on the remaining trade secrets.

If the appeal tribunal is hearing an appeal respecting the compensation of a worker and the evidence supporting different findings on an issue is evenly weighted in that case, the appeal tribunal must resolve that issue in a manner that favours the worker.

The case highlights the fact that parties and their advisers must ensure that all relevant evidence is placed before the tribunal at the initial hearing as they can not rely on having a «second bite at the cherry».

At the original tribunal hearing, the employer put forward no firm evidence of the poaching, claiming it was not aware it had to do so.

At any given time various foreign arbitration tribunals routinely hear evidence and make orders regarding claims between disputing parties.

It may be more convenient for an arbitral tribunal sitting in one country to conduct a hearing in another country - for instance, for the purpose of taking evidence....

An employment tribunal hearing an appeal under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, s 24 by a person on whom a prohibition notice had been served is entitled to take into account all the available evidence relevant to the state of affairs at the time of the service of the prohibition notice, including information coming to light after it was served.

If the case goes to a hearing the tribunal panel will consider the case statements and any other documents provided by you and the Responsible Body, together with the evidence that it hears to help them make a decision about your case.

Conduct of hearing: The Chairperson shall preside at the hearing, which shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to judicial tribunals, but by the Outline of Procedure for Arbitration Hearing found in Part Twelve of this Manual, and by the Chairperson's Procedural Guide: Conduct of an Interboard Arbitration Hearing, also in Part Twelve of this hearing: The Chairperson shall preside at the hearing, which shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to judicial tribunals, but by the Outline of Procedure for Arbitration Hearing found in Part Twelve of this Manual, and by the Chairperson's Procedural Guide: Conduct of an Interboard Arbitration Hearing, also in Part Twelve of this hearing, which shall not be bound by the strict rules of evidence applicable to judicial tribunals, but by the Outline of Procedure for Arbitration Hearing found in Part Twelve of this Manual, and by the Chairperson's Procedural Guide: Conduct of an Interboard Arbitration Hearing, also in Part Twelve of this Hearing found in Part Twelve of this Manual, and by the Chairperson's Procedural Guide: Conduct of an Interboard Arbitration Hearing, also in Part Twelve of this Hearing, also in Part Twelve of this Manual.

If this is true, which there is no evidence suggesting otherwise, we really have a biased and prejudicial person representing the government and public's interests in these hearings and tribunals.