Sentences with phrase «against the defendant given»

The judge further held that, in any event, negligence was not made out against the defendant given the absence of expert evidence with respect to the appropriate standard of care.

Not exact matches

«Given the nature of the charges against the defendant and the apparent weight of the evidence against him, defendant faces the very real possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison,» Ellis said of the former campaign manager.

The defense motions have included asking the judge to drop some charges, and give each defendant a separate trial to avoid having the case against one prejudice the others.

Last month, Oyster Bay faced off against prosecutors and attorneys for all three defendants over a statement a former deputy town attorney gave officials during a town inquiry into loan guarantees involving a former town vendor, Harendra Singh.

59 The answer to the first question and the first part of the third question is therefore that European Union law must be interpreted as meaning that it does not preclude the issue of judgment by default against a defendant on whom, given that it is impossible to locate him, the document instituting proceedings has been served by public notice under national law, provided that the court seised of the matter has first satisfied itself that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken to trace the defendant.

-- that regulation does not preclude the application of a provision of national procedural law of a Member State which, with a view to avoiding situations of denial of justice, enables proceedings to be brought against, and in the absence of, a person whose domicile is unknown, if the court seised of the matter is satisfied, before giving a ruling in those proceedings, that all investigations required by the principles of diligence and good faith have been undertaken with a view to tracing the defendant.

(b) If a defendant gives such a notice, the court will not make an order for costs against him unless it considers that there was no reasonable ground for opposing the will.»

On interest, a non-compliant defendant against whom a money judgment is given may be caned for up to 10 % over base rate.

The interpretation given to s 4 by the Court of Appeal does not prevent a defendant who wants to make a payment but wishes it to be taken into account against any damages which might be awarded against him in future from doing so.

Guidance is given in s 14 (2): for the purposes of s 14 (1) an injury is significant if the person whose date of knowledge is in question would reasonably have considered it sufficiently serious to justify his instituting proceedings for damages against a defendant who did not dispute liability and was able to satisfy a judgment.

In particular, as regards the impact on related criminal proceedings, the protections afforded to criminal defendants are not available to witnesses in a public inquiry, who may be compelled to give evidence or disclose documents that may breach the privilege against self - incrimination that would be available to them in the criminal proceedings themselves.

«In light of the economically significant relationship between Chevron and Chevron Canada, and given that Chevron Canada maintains a non-transitory place of business in Ontario, an Ontario court has jurisdiction to adjudicate a recognition and enforcement action against Chevron Canada's indirect corporate parent that also names Chevron Canada as a defendant and seeks the seizure of the shares and assets of Chevron Canada to satisfy a judgment against the corporate parent.»

Now, the Supreme Court's «TC Heartland» decision has limited where patent cases may be filed against corporate defendants, giving rise to major implications for both existing and future patent cases.

As stated in Briggs and Rees Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005) 4th edition at paras 2.02 to 2.07 & 2.105: (i) The fundamental rule was that if a case fell within the Brussels Regulation, the Regulation alone allocated jurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept to a minimum.

Three witnesses, who identified the defendant as the gunman, claimed to be in fear for their lives if it became known that they had given evidence against the defendant.

For example, a defendant may lodge an appeal against the judgment given by a trial judge.

«In addition the moment a loan goes into default a basic valuation check should be made either through an automated value model or alternatively even in main web products to ascertain if there is sufficient security and, if not, consideration must be given at that stage, and not at the date of repossession, to a standstill agreement on limitation against the Defendant professional or even the issuing of a protective Claim Form.

The defense will want to know if there were any statements made at the time of the accident where their agents or representatives gave «admissions against interest» — in other words, said things that admitted the defendant is to blame for what happened.

If the defendant does not show up judgment against the defendant may be given.

It allows many parties with similar claims to pursue them collectively against a given defendant.

The sixth amendment gives all defendants the right to cross-examine the witnesses against them.

Note, however, the issues highlighted below at question 2.7 d) in relation to the enforcement of foreign judgments given in default and against defendants that have not expressly submitted to the jurisdiction of the foreign court, which may affect the amenability of the enforcement action to summary judgment.

Given the rejection of the anonymity claims which would inevitably carry a risk of Islamist attacks against both convicted and acquitted defendants, we can see why he was not very impressed with formulaic applications for anonymity in these settlement approval cases.

The most promising explanations for that advantage are the defendant's superior resources, the social standing of physicians, social norms against «profiting» from an injury, and the jury's willingness to give physicians the «benefit of the doubt» when the evidence of negligence is conflicting.»)

How could the court have given an effective remedy against the defendants without such an order?

Given Perell J.'s determination that the proposed class action against the settling defendants satisfied all of the certification criteria (albeit on a less strict evaluation than would be applied in a contested certification motion), it is more likely than not that the plaintiffs would be successful if they moved to certify against the Underwriter Ddefendants satisfied all of the certification criteria (albeit on a less strict evaluation than would be applied in a contested certification motion), it is more likely than not that the plaintiffs would be successful if they moved to certify against the Underwriter DefendantsDefendants.

Thus there would be no reason to give lawyers or plaintiffs a reward for pursuing retributive damages against an already convicted defendant.

Where a claim is brought against a defendant, consideration should be given not only to the likelihood of success, as compared to the value of the damages and costs the case exposes the client to, but also to the media coverage of the case, the reduction of the party's goodwill if the issue is fought, and the cost of re-establishing that goodwill.

The defendant submitted that the words «or such part of it as is reasonable in the circumstances» gave it a discretion which enabled it to allow against gross income only such part (if any) of the rent as had been paid during the relevant month or other period adopted by it.

Our lawyers practice on both sides of the «v,» giving them deep insights into how to successfully prosecute cases against corporate defendants.

«Ultimately, fee shifting will give small defendants a chance to fight back against weak troll cases,» the Electronic Frontier Foundation wrote recently in defense of the provision.

We believe simple common - sense reforms like these would go a long way toward restoring fairness in the system by giving defendants access to information and the tools they need to fight back against trolls.

Ultimately, fee shifting will give small defendants a chance to fight back against weak troll cases.