Sentences with phrase «appeal application the judge»

She appealed from that decision and sought leave to appeal the application judge's costs award.

Not exact matches

The Court of Appeal Judge sitting as an additional High Court judge, dismissed the application for contempt on September 28 even though the case was originally scheduled to be heard on October 12, Judge sitting as an additional High Court judge, dismissed the application for contempt on September 28 even though the case was originally scheduled to be heard on October 12, judge, dismissed the application for contempt on September 28 even though the case was originally scheduled to be heard on October 12, 2015.

However, in his appeal marked CA / A / 451C / 2018, Metuh said the trial judge «manifested obvious bias» against him by failing to exercise his discretion judicially and judiciously when he dismissed his application based on «imaginary facts».

The judge described the application as totally strange, noting that having not appealed against the interim forfeiture order, Ogungbeje had no right to seek a stay of proceedings in the case.

Dasuki to Appeal Judgement on Unlawful Detention... Judge Says EFCC is Different from DSS A Federal Capital Territory High Court has dismissed an application brought before it by former National Security Adviser (NSA), Sambo Dasuki.

The judge ruled, «In view of the pending appeal and application for stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal, this matter is adjourned sine die (indefinitely) to await the decision of the Court of Appeal on the fundamental issue of service and / or of stay of proceedings.&appeal and application for stay of proceedings at the Court of Appeal, this matter is adjourned sine die (indefinitely) to await the decision of the Court of Appeal on the fundamental issue of service and / or of stay of proceedings.&Appeal, this matter is adjourned sine die (indefinitely) to await the decision of the Court of Appeal on the fundamental issue of service and / or of stay of proceedings.&Appeal on the fundamental issue of service and / or of stay of proceedings.»

March 4, 2016 - Attorney General Laxalt decided to appeal Judge Wilson's order to stop the implementation of SB302, and appealed before the Nevada Supreme Court, asking the Court to reverse Judge Wilson's order to enjoin the application of SB302 law.

«We contend that the primary judge made a series of fundamental errors in her disposition of the interlocutory application,» lawyers representing Samsung said to the appeals court judges.

However, in Robinson v Robinson (Disclosure)(1983) 4 FLR 102, CA Ormrod LJ said that while applications to set aside could be made by either a new action or an appeal to a higher court, there was much convenience in an application to the judge who made the original order who could determine the application and then make a new order if appropriate.

On appeal, Downey's counsel argued that the trial judge had erred in his application of the doctrine of wilful blindness.

In Dr Yeung Sau Shing Albert v Google Inc (No. 2)[2015] 1 HKLRD 26, the judge granted application for leave to appeal that:

The courts held that an injunction could be granted where it was just and proportionate to do so and that a judge hearing an injunction application could not consider the merits of the planning decision as this was a matter for the appeal stage.

The appeal is limited to the following submission: did the application judge err in concluding the «purpose test» contained in Amos is met in the circumstances (was the incident in question really an «accident»)?

This appeal raises the issue of whether a trial judge erred in dismissing an application to sever.

An appeal — including an application for permission to appeal — that lies to FC circuit or district judge can be leapfrogged to a High Court judge at the direction of the DFJ or HCJ where an important point of principle or practice is involved (Family Court (Composition and Distribution of Business) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/840).

Applying that approach to the facts in Morris, the Court of Appeal considered that the judge's approach to the application had not been too restrictive: it had been light touch, but, in the circumstances, not to the extent that the judge could be said to have failed to undertake the statutory exercise required by MCA 1973, s 31.

The only reason advanced by the judge is that disclosure is such a fundamental part of first instance applications for financial orders that it would be astonishing if the duty was any different on appeal.

The Court of Appeal has now condoned the robust approach taken by judges in the exercise of their case management powers when facing applications for a relief from sanctions.

In its decision denying the application for disqualification of the trial judge, the appeal court made the following observations regarding Groia's conduct in the OSC hearing:

A Quebec judge will not have his day in court after the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed his application for leave to appeal last week in a case where he was accused of judicial misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an application for permission to appeal and reinforced the trial judge's comments about the misleading nature of the applicant's eviAppeal dismissed an application for permission to appeal and reinforced the trial judge's comments about the misleading nature of the applicant's eviappeal and reinforced the trial judge's comments about the misleading nature of the applicant's evidence.

The Crown appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in his consideration and application of s. 150.1 (4) of the Criminal Code, which states that it is not a defence for an accused to say they believed a complainant was 16 years of age or older when the sexual acts occurred.

The Court of Appeal upheld the application judge's decision, which found Cheung's expectation that the restaurant should be able to use all the common parking spaces was unreasonable.

In allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of the motions judge, a unanimous Court of Appeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no applicappeal and setting aside the order of the motions judge, a unanimous Court of Appeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no applicAppeal panel accepted the appellant's argument that Rule 15.02 (4), a rule designed to terminate proceedings where a named plaintiff has not authorized commencement, had no application.

Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, and two other appeal judges in Howell & Others v Lees Millais & Others, ruled that Peter Smith J had got «carried away», had shown «undoubted animosity» and was «intemperate» in the way he handled the application for him to stand down.

Although this appeal does not raise only issues of credibility, I agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the appeal does not raise only issues of credibility, I agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the facts.

There was no justification for fast - track appeals for super-injunctions, and the use of specialist judges for such applications was «neither justifiable nor practicable».

The Ontario Court of Appeal disagreed with the application judge and concluded that Bowes was entitled to the full six month payment.

These denials can, and should, be appealed to a district court judge, who often offers a far more objective review of your application.

(4) Despite subsection (3), a judge of the court to which the application is made or a subsequent appeal is taken may grant a stay until the disposition of the judicial review or appeal.

Although the Court of Appeal did not find that Judge Lenehan had erred in law by stating that «a drunk can consent», his application of the legal test for a person's capacity to consent to sexual activity was a legal error.

But, the new DA disagreed with the legal analysis and / or position taken in the case by the old DA and the trial judge, and concluded that the sentence was invalid and that she would lose on appeal (the issue concerned the application of a recidivist sentencing statute in Colorado to cause a minor offense to have a very long sentence).

The Court of Appeal for British Columbia has dismissed an application asking for a rare order that a trial judge provide a report on his reasons for conviction of a man for dangerous driving causing death, just because he erred in saying «right» when it should have been «left» in his review of the evidence.

The application will be heard by at least two judges of the High Court, one of whom will be a lord justice of appeal.

The application judge's decision was upheld on the appeal.

This application for permission to appeal resulted from the refusal by a family judge to permit a person to act as a McKenzie friend within care proceedings.

The appellant husband appealed the order of the motion judge striking his pleadings for failure to comply with court orders and allowing the wife to amend her application.

In this case, Economical appealed the order of the application judge that required it to pay the applicant interest in the amount of two percent per month, compounded monthly, on attendant care, and housekeeping / home maintenance benefits.

Because the initial application and first appeal are judged solely on paperwork received by the Administration's office, it may be difficult to get a reviewer to understand how the pain affects your life.

The BC Court of Appeal set aside the reduction of support on the basis the trial judge failed to first determine whether there was a material change of circumstances, and also failed to properly interprete the arbitration award without considering the arbitrator's reasons, the application of the Family Law Act and applicable case law.

Another sometimes challenging example is where a trial judge applies an objective standard to resolve a trial and the appeal centers on the application of that standard.

An application for permission to appeal was rejected by the trial Judge and the Court of Aappeal was rejected by the trial Judge and the Court of AppealAppeal.

In Hartley v. Cunningham et al. 2013 ONCA 759, the Court of Appeal affirmed the application judge's decision that the tree belonged to both neighbours.

The Court of Appeal overruled the application judge's decision.

The Court of Appeal held that the Judge could not be faulted for having dismissed Khrapunov's application on the ground of delay, and that meant that his appeal should be dismAppeal held that the Judge could not be faulted for having dismissed Khrapunov's application on the ground of delay, and that meant that his appeal should be dismappeal should be dismissed.

Both the first instance judge and the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed most of the applicants» requests, without considering the merits of the application, based on abuse of process and lack of public interest standing.

(correct test for Barrister appeals; whether outside the ex improviso rule, prosecutor may call evidence after prosecution and defence case closed; use of debarring orders against prosecutor; whether tribunal may «enter the arena» and strongly request the attendance of a prosecution witness; whether BSB has power to summons witnesses; whether prosecutor may communicate with disciplinary judge behind the back of the defence; whether such communication redolent of actual bias of judge where judge wishes prosecutor good luck on appeal; whether apparent bias doctrine can be engaged by post-trial conduct of judge; legal effect of serving BSB prosecutions department officer being 1 of 4 appointing members of the COIC «Tribunals Appointments Body» (TAB); whether TAB ultra vires the Bar's Constitutions; whether open - ended power of removal of member of COIC pool without cause, unlawful given position of BSB Chair and senior staff on COIC; whether ECHR Article 6 guarantees against pressure on disciplinary judges to conform with a prosecutorial mentality; whether disciplinary judges Art. 6 «independent» within Findlay v United Kingdom given key role of BSB prosecutions department in appointing disciplinary judges; serious non-disclosure by BSB of notes of secret meeting between BSB and disciplinary judge until day before appeal and despite requests and application for disclosure by defence)

The Ontario Court of Appeal recently released its endorsement in Alfred Wegener Institute v. ALCI Aviation Ltd., 2014 ONCA 398, upholding an order from the application judge that a German arbitral award be recognized and enforced in Ontario as if it were a judgment or order of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

After the appellants failed to appear at the German arbitration and the Ontario application to enforce the German arbitral award, the appellants finally responded by bringing this appeal based on a technical argument under Article 35 (2) of the International Commercial Arbitration Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. I. 9, which required the party relying on the foreign arbitral award to supply a certified copy of the original award to the application judge.

(Appeal by dentist against suspension by GDC; GDC appoints those who appoint PCC panel members; GDC also prosecutes dentists before PCC; whether system of appointments of PCC panel members by GDC indirectly, engages the doctrine of apparent bias; whether GDC a judge in its own cause; chairman of PCC panel a recent elected member of GDC; whether chairman automatically disqualified; application of Pinochet doctrine).