Sentences with phrase «appeal as an interested party»

The secretary of state for work and pensions was added to the appeal as an interested party in support of Innospec and the hearing took place in 2015.

Not exact matches

So they are actually appealing to women on one hand from 25 to 35 years old as party starters or girls - night - in drinks, as well as appealing to males about 25 to 45 depending on the type of Twisted Shotz that interests them.»

However, it's added by the Express that he has a # 25m release clause which would certainly be appealing to interested parties as that would arguably be a snip for an established player of his quality with his goalscoring record at such a high level in today's market given the transfer fees we've seen in recent times, and so it remains to be seen what the future holds for Mertens.

He held that the interested parties having indicated their interest, which although was dismissed by the court, «the court is not minded to take any pre-emptive step» capable of undermining the eventual decision of the Court of Appeal, which he said could possibly order them to be joined as parties.

Sensing that INEC was lukewarm in pursuing the appeals, the former Military Administrator of Lagos State, applied to be joined as an interested party.

I wonder if there would be a place for you or another / others to draft a «voice of ordinary concerned civilians» 3000 - word account of what makes ordinary folk collectively have a right to appeal as «interested parties».

On the facts of these appeals, it seems reasonable to infer that recognizing interest as an expense would lead to a transfer of resources between classes of parties in which unsuccessful defendants are exposed to the risks of paying high interest rates designed to pay for the cost of lending money, not just to the successful party in the case but other plaintiffs who receive financing but may not recover moneys to pay for their loans...

NEIL HERRON and PARKING APPEALS LIMITED v THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR; (SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL and the SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT as Interested Parties)

Some have described this judgment as awesome... -LSB--RSB- In my view, judgments like this also do something much less appealing and much more troubling — they turn a decision about the rights and interests of parties before the court into an opportunity to show off the cleverness and erudition of the judge.»

At para 36 of the judgment, Mance LJ distinguished between those matters which required permission to appeal, such as pursuant to AA 1996, s 69, where the starting point, (as per the rule committee) was to treat the public interest in a public hearing as outweighing any wish on the parties» part for continuing privacy and confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal, by a majority, upheld Kernott's appeal, finding that the parties owned the beneficial interest as tenants in common in equal shares as there was no evidence that the parties» intentions had changed after their separAppeal, by a majority, upheld Kernott's appeal, finding that the parties owned the beneficial interest as tenants in common in equal shares as there was no evidence that the parties» intentions had changed after their separappeal, finding that the parties owned the beneficial interest as tenants in common in equal shares as there was no evidence that the parties» intentions had changed after their separation.

Justice Brown exercised his discretion to hear the appeal because: (i) the parties argued with vigour (as if the matter was not moot); (ii) the issue might not otherwise arrive at the Court of Appeal due to the costly three - stage appeal process and there was a strong public interest in resolving this legal issue; and (iii) the court was not deciding an abstract question (thus intruding into the legislative sphere) but was resolving an issue based on a complete rappeal because: (i) the parties argued with vigour (as if the matter was not moot); (ii) the issue might not otherwise arrive at the Court of Appeal due to the costly three - stage appeal process and there was a strong public interest in resolving this legal issue; and (iii) the court was not deciding an abstract question (thus intruding into the legislative sphere) but was resolving an issue based on a complete rAppeal due to the costly three - stage appeal process and there was a strong public interest in resolving this legal issue; and (iii) the court was not deciding an abstract question (thus intruding into the legislative sphere) but was resolving an issue based on a complete rappeal process and there was a strong public interest in resolving this legal issue; and (iii) the court was not deciding an abstract question (thus intruding into the legislative sphere) but was resolving an issue based on a complete record.

Mr. McCarty has tried thousands of workers» compensation appeals, and he is one of very few attorneys in the state to have represented the interests of injured workers as well as employers, third - party administrators, and insurance companies.

Finally, the Federal Court of Appeal noted that clients may be better served when dealing with complex statutes such as the Income Tax Act if their counsel are able to work collaboratively in furtherance of completing transactions in which the parties have a sufficient common interest.

In making this determination, the Court of Appeal clarified that arbitrators retain discretion to protect privacy interests of parties or witnesses as they may deem necessary in the circumstances.

As a final comment, notwithstanding the error noted by the Court of Appeal («In the normal course, someone on the acquisition team would have been assigned responsibility for determining whether financial instruments that gave a lender the right to veto a change - of - control existed and, if there were, communicating with the lender to ascertain its position»)(see para. 22, FN 18), the Court acknowledged counsel's «excellent» oral and written submissions on appeal — even stating that the interests of the parties «could not have been better served&rAppeal («In the normal course, someone on the acquisition team would have been assigned responsibility for determining whether financial instruments that gave a lender the right to veto a change - of - control existed and, if there were, communicating with the lender to ascertain its position»)(see para. 22, FN 18), the Court acknowledged counsel's «excellent» oral and written submissions on appeal — even stating that the interests of the parties «could not have been better served&rappeal — even stating that the interests of the parties «could not have been better served».

As a point of interest, the recent BC Court of Appeal case of Innes v. Bui is worth reviewing for the Court's comments on appropriate parties to sue when the only dispute following a collision is ICBC's determination of fault and the premium consequences that flow from this.

I found it interesting that one party before the Court of Appeal tried to get the court to adopt the Uniform Court Proceedings and Jurisdiction Transfer Act's principles as preferable to the Muscutt rules.

By the time the matter reached the Court of Appeal they instead sought to rely on the analogous principle that an innocent party faced with a repudiatory breach of contract can not choose to affirm the contract, as opposed to accepting the repudiation and suing for damages, if he has no legitimate interest in doing so.

It will be interesting to see whether the Supreme Court decides to follow the Court of Appeal's line of reasoning, which ignores an express contractual term at the expense of safeguarding the principle that contracting parties retain the freedom to enter into further contracts as they wish.