Sentences with phrase «adopted by the high court»

A similar approach was adopted by the High Court in Northern Ireland in Hunter v MOD NIQB 43 [2007]; the claimant had sustained serious injury to his right knee, which resulted in him being discharged from the army.

He found that the applicants should not be knocked out in a preliminary hearing of the kind adopted by the High Court (a «demurrer»), which addressed legal questions divorced from a full trial involving witnesses and other evidence.

Not exact matches

He added, «Since each of the defendants has been on one administrative bail or the other, my sixth judicial sense informs me that I adopt the terms and conditions of the bail granted to the defendants by the EFCC and my learned brothers in the FCT High Courts.»

This is undoubtedly correct from the point of view of democratic legitimacy; a certain level of deference by courts is thereby maintained in relation to challenges by individuals of acts adopted as the result of a legislative procedure in which two institutions with the highest democratic legitimacy (EP and Council) are involved.

On the other hand, Section 3 of the Act also came under scrutiny by the High Court Division in STX Corporation Ltd v Meghna Group of Industries Limited [4](STX Corporation), and the High Court Division adopted a literal construction of section 3 (1) of the Act.

Being as kind as possible to the reasoning, the Court adopts a «Goldilocks» approach: the amount of punitive damages awarded by the trial judge ($ 1,000,000) was «too high», the amount awarded by the Court of Appeal ($ 250,000) was too low because it «fails to fully reflect the gravity of the conduct and the need to deter others», so $ 500,000 is perfect.

The Washington Supreme Court adopted Admission and Practice Rule 28 in 2012 to create LLLTs following a 2003 study by the Task Force on Civil Equal Justice Funding which found that despite a high frequency of civil legal problems in low - income households, over 85 % did not have any legal assistance.

On the rare occasions that conduct is a relevant factor, the following approach may be adopted; Allegations of conduct should be included in Form E although the parties should be discouraged from raising allegations of conduct unless absolutely necessary; The district judge should clarify at the directions appointment whether conduct is being pursued and, if so, order particulars to be given of the precise allegations relied on and give directions as to the evidence to be adduced by each party; An alternative route may be to defer the filing and service of conduct statements until after the family dispute resolution hearing to allow potential settlement to be explored; It should be taken into account that conduct is one of the relevant considerations in determining whether proceedings should be transferred to the High Court, although conduct alone is unlikely to be sufficient to justify a transfer.

The majority of the Supreme Court justices adopted the argument that succeeded in the High Court, namely that rights conferred by an Act of Parliament (the European Communities Act 1972) can only be removed by another Act of Parliament and not by royal prerogative powers.

Yet the majority of the High Court in Miriuwung Gajerrong do not feel compelled by these provisions to adopt a similar approach to inconsistency.

The main purpose of the Act is to amend the Adoption Act 2010 to provide: • that married parents may place a child for adoption, on a voluntary basis, in circumstances where both parents place the child for adoption and where both parents consent to the making of the adoption order; • for revised criteria so that where an application to adopt a child is made in respect of a child who is in the custody of and who has had a home with the applicants for a period of at least 18 months, and where that child's parents have failed in their parental duty towards that child for a continuous period of not less than 36 months, the High Court may dispense with parental consent and authorise the Adoption Authority to make an adoption order in respect of that child; • that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in relation to any matter, application or proceedings under the Adoption Act 2010 and that the views of the child shall be ascertained by the Adoption Authority or by the court, as the case may be, and shall be given due weight, having regard to the age and maturity of the cCourt may dispense with parental consent and authorise the Adoption Authority to make an adoption order in respect of that child; • that the best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in relation to any matter, application or proceedings under the Adoption Act 2010 and that the views of the child shall be ascertained by the Adoption Authority or by the court, as the case may be, and shall be given due weight, having regard to the age and maturity of the ccourt, as the case may be, and shall be given due weight, having regard to the age and maturity of the child.

The state's highest court has rejected a regulation adopted by the state's Department of Telecommunications and Energy that would have given telecommunications companies access «to any pole, duct, conduit, or right of way» in any building with four or more residential or commercial tenants.

In a challenge supported by NAR as well as the Greater Boston Real Estate Board and the Real Access Alliance, Massachusetts's highest court has struck down a regulation adopted by the state's Department of Telecommunications and Energy («Department») that attempted to regulate private landowners as utilities.