Sentences with phrase «appeal refers the case»

The court of appeal refers the case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 25 of the Visa Code.

Not exact matches

I will refer in particular to three criticisms highlighted in the report: the slowness to remove foreign national prisoners from the UK, the concern with the high rate of appeals brought against UKBA's decisions which are decided against the Agency, and the large number of unresolved immigration cases still awaiting decision.

A spokesman for the Home Office said that they believed the deadline for Qatada to appeal his case had passed, saying that he had «no right to request to refer the case to the grand chamber [of the court] because the three - month deadline passed at midnight on Monday».

In December 2008 Greenpeace received a letter from the Crown Prosecution Service revealing that the Attorney - General was close to referring the case of the Kingsnorth Six to the Court of Appeal in an effort to remove the defence of «lawful excuse» from activists.

The appeals court in the Silver case ordered the case be referred to the lower court again for a new trial.

He insisted he would only refer the case to the court of appeal if «he believes that it falls significantly below what any judge could reasonably have passed», and stressed his actions so far did not imply any criticism of the sentencing judge.

A spokesman confirmed Lord Goldsmith is looking at the case of Craig Sweeney, a convicted paedophile jailed yesterday for life but who could be out in five years, to see if it should be referred to the court of appeal as too lenient.

The Supreme Court on Thursday referred back to the Court of Appeal, Abuja, all pending cases relating to the dispute over the leadership tussle between the Ali Modu Sheriff an d Ahmed Makarfi factions of the Peoples Democratic Party.

replete with such language: it disdains the district court's «abrupt handling» of Appellant's first case; sarcastically refers to Appellant's previous counsel's «new - found appreciation for defendant's mental abilities;» criticizes the district court's «oblique language» on an issue unrelated to this appeal; states that the district court opinion in Jones «revealed a crabby and complaining reaction to Project Exile;» insinuates that the district court's concerns «require -LSB--RSB- a belief in the absurd that is similar in kind to embracing paranormal conspiracy theories;» and accuses Appellant of being a «charlatan» and «exploit [ing] his identity as an African - American.»

The miscarriage watchdog managed to refer just 12 cases back to the Court of Appeal last year.

In its 20 year history the CCRC has only referred two cases back to the appeal judges on a second referral.

Even more pleasing is the fact that Lord Hope, at paragraph [76] of his speech, referred to my article in which I had criticised the Court of Appeal's decision in this case!

This appeal considered whether the Respondent erred in law in refusing to refer the Appellant's rape conviction case to the High Court.

The Court of Appeal subsequently referred the case to the Court to ask whether article 3 (1) of the Copyright Directive (Directive 96 / 9 / EC) granted copyright to the creators of annual match fixtures.

The outcome of the appeal is clear: the judgment by the General Court is set aside and the case is referred back to the General Court so that it can rule on the pleas that were not dealt with in the l judgment in first instance.

In appeal on a point of law, the two cases were then brought before the German Federal Administrative Court, which decided to stay proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court of Justice of the European Union:

To summarise: (1) The UKSC in the (R) Miller appeal will not be obliged under Article 267 TFEU to refer the question to the CJEU of whether revocation of an Article 50 TEU notice is possible because under requirement (i) of the CILFIT test this question is not relevant to determine the case;

In Sumukan v Commonwealth Secretariat [2007] EWCA Civ 243, [2007] All ER (D) 341 (Mar) the Court of Appeal held that it was sufficient for the contract to expressly include an arbitration clause which in turn referred to the statute and rules of the relevant arbitral tribunal — in this case the Commonweath Secretariat Arbitral Tribunal (CSAT), which was a body created and constituted by the defendant.

That was a question that was addressed in the Court of Appeal, before the Supreme Court was established, in Attorney - General v E. I referred to that case and in particular to the dissenting judgment of Thomas J who complained of what he called the «judicial minimalism», namely «resolving the issue before the Court and nothing more».

The judge referred the case to the Court of Appeal after describing the current position as unsatisfactory.

I did discover one bit of sloppy proofreading — on pages 350 and 445, an English case, British Amusement Catering Trades Association v. Westminster City Council [1987] 1 W.L.R. 977 is referred to as a decision of the House of Lords -LRB-[1989] AC 147), rather than the Court of Appeal, even though the judgment referred to is of Balcombe, LJ — and the plaintiff's name is misspelled as British Assessment Catering Trades Association.

Although Smuk and Smith were both referred to in the memoranda of fact and law filed in the Ontario Court of Appeal in Archer (memorandum of fact and law submitted on behalf of the appellant, p. 16, para. 27 (b); memorandum of fact and law submitted on behalf of the respondent, p. 9, para. 5), the judgment in Archer made no specific reference to either case.

Cases of Gregoire & Kumar (ONCA, 2008) referred to below in H.L., [2009] O.J. No. 3572 (SCJ, Hill J): Analysis 25 On the appeal, without the benefit of the June 20 and June 27, 2008 transcripts, the court raised with the parties the propriety of the pre-trial justice presiding as the sentencing trial judge.

That decision was in turn appealed to the Conseil d'Etat which stayed the case and referred a number of questions to the Court of Justice asking essentially if the exclusion clause operated only in relation to terrorist acts as defined in Article 1 of the Framework Decision on Combatting Terrorism (FDCT)[4] or if ancillary acts of participation in terrorist organisation and facilitating the commission of terrorist acts could be considered contrary to the principles and values of the UN as referred to in Articles 12 (2)(c) and 12 (3)[5] of the Qualification Directive.

This new body was to consider alleged miscarriages of justice, supervise their investigation if further inquiries were needed, and refer appropriate cases to the Court of Appeal.

In summary, the CCRC's primary functions are (1) to consider suspected miscarriages of justice, (2) to arrange for their investigation where appropriate, and (3) to refer cases to the Court of Appeal in the event that the investigation revealed matters that ought to be considered further by the courts.

[118] As I have found that decision to have infringed the Applicants» Charter rights and have concluded that the Committee's finding that the Applicants» conduct constituted non-academic misconduct for which they should be disciplined constituted an unreasonable decision, I am of the view that the Review Committee's decision should be quashed and that this is not a case where the matter need be referred to the Board of Governor's Student Discipline Review Committee to consider an appeal from that decision.

The depth of the Commission's investigative powers enables it to actively investigate miscarriage of justice claims before a decision is made on whether or not to refer the case to the appeal courts.

Prior to 1995, the Home Secretary had the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal.

The Minister of Justice referred the case back to the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Once Case Review Managers have completed their reviews, cases are passed to the CCRC members to decide whether the cases should be referred for appeal.

Only in exceptional circumstances can a case be referred without the applicant having exhausted the normal appeal process.

From April 2005 to March 2007, the CCRG received fifty - seven applications, completed five investigations, and made three decisions: one case was dismissed and two were referred to the Court of Appeal.

Critical to the decision of the Court of Appeal was the wording of cl 1 of the lease which set out the term granted in the following way: «from and including 1 January 2003 to 28 September 2004 (hereinafter called «the term» which expression shall include any period of holding over or extension of it whether by statute or at common law or by agreement)...» Rimmer LJ, who gave the only substantive judgment in the case, referred to the words in brackets in this clause as «the words of extension».

The Supreme Court also referred to the case of Dardana Ltd v Yukos Oil Co (No 1)[2002] EWCA Civ 543, where the Court of Appeal had made the same error.

Although Makin referred to immunity in the context of legislative and policy - making functions, the Court of Appeal used the case to conclude that «Protecting administrative tribunals and their members from liability for damages is constitutionally legitimate» (at para 29).

In reaching this decision the court referred to a leading BC Court of Appeal Case where it was held that «a Plaintiff does not have an on - going obligation to assess the quantum (value) of a claim and that the point in time for a consideration of whether a plaintiff had a sufficient reason for bringing a proceeding in the Supreme Court is the time of the initiation of the action.»

The Commission upheld her claim and the company then appealed and the court referred the case to the ECJ.

Traders appealed and the OFT cross-appealed the High Court ruling before the Court of Appeal (England and Wales)(Civil Division), which referred the case to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling whereby it seeked an interpretation of paragraph 31 of Annex I to the Directive 2005 / 29 / EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business - to - consumer commercial practices in the internal market (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22) in order to determine whether that provision prohibits the imposition of a cost, even of a de minimis nature, on a consumer who has been informed that they have won a prize.

The Court of Appeal referred back to the seminal case of White v White [2001] 1 AC 596, [2001] 1 All ER 1, in which reference was made to the concept of the «yardstick of equality» which was introduced to ensure that there was no discrimination between the husband and the wife and their respective roles as money - earner and home - maker and child - carer.

The case has been followed in England at fi rst instance in Perry v Day... and referred to without enthusiasm by the Court of Appeal in Day v Cook... and Gardner v Parker... But in all these cases the court was bound by the decision in Giles v Rhind.

His lordship also referred to the pre-existing English case law, as well as a Paris Court of Appeal decision of 26 June 1991 (in the case of KFTCIC v Icori Estero Spa (unreported), where the French court dismissed a challenge to an award rendered by a tribunal which had been chaired by a barrister from the same chambers as counsel for one of the parties.

The B.C. Court of Appeal, in dismissing the senior manager's appeal, thoroughly reviewed the law and referred to many longstanding Appeal, in dismissing the senior manager's appeal, thoroughly reviewed the law and referred to many longstanding appeal, thoroughly reviewed the law and referred to many longstanding cases.

(2) In the case referred to in the preceding paragraph, the record referred to in said paragraph shall have attached thereto a document stating an opinion of the court of prior instance with regard to the appeal case and materials that serve as a reference in the proceedings of the appeal case.

(2) Where the record of the appeal case is forwarded pursuant to the provisions of the preceding paragraph, if the court in charge of the appeal finds therecord of the case pertaining to personal status litigation referred to in said paragraph to be necessary, a court clerk of the court in charge of the appealshall promptly request a court clerk of the court of prior instance to forward said record.

Article 27 (1) Where the immediate appeal referred to in paragraph (4) of Article 35 (Inspection, etc. of the Portion related to the Examination of the Facts) of the Act is filed, if the court of prior instance finds no need to forward the record of the case pertaining to personal status litigation, it is sufficient for a court clerk of the court of prior instance to forward only the record of the appeal case to a court clerk of the court in charge of the appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 174 (Forwarding of Record due to Filing of Appeal to Second Instance) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 205 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Provisions Concerning Appeal to Court of Second Instance or Final Appeal) of said appeal referred to in paragraph (4) of Article 35 (Inspection, etc. of the Portion related to the Examination of the Facts) of the Act is filed, if the court of prior instance finds no need to forward the record of the case pertaining to personal status litigation, it is sufficient for a court clerk of the court of prior instance to forward only the record of the appeal case to a court clerk of the court in charge of the appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 174 (Forwarding of Record due to Filing of Appeal to Second Instance) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 205 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Provisions Concerning Appeal to Court of Second Instance or Final Appeal) of said appeal case to a court clerk of the court in charge of the appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 174 (Forwarding of Record due to Filing of Appeal to Second Instance) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 205 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Provisions Concerning Appeal to Court of Second Instance or Final Appeal) of said appeal, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 174 (Forwarding of Record due to Filing of Appeal to Second Instance) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 205 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Provisions Concerning Appeal to Court of Second Instance or Final Appeal) of said Appeal to Second Instance) of the Rules of Civil Procedure as applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 205 (Application Mutatis Mutandis of Provisions Concerning Appeal to Court of Second Instance or Final Appeal) of said Appeal to Court of Second Instance or Final Appeal) of said Appeal) of said Rules.

Even though the question of the hearing ancillary relief (and all other family cases) in public has not arisen in this case (and indeed was expressly not supported by Mr Dean in his submissions) I would hope that nonetheless the Court of Appeal will resolve the unhappy divergence of judicial approach to which I referred at paras 13 — 16 of DL v SL.»

This case involves an interpretation of the Maryland Workers» Compensation Act with respect to when an injured worker can appeal a decision from the Workers» Compensation Commission denying a request to have the Commission refer the case to the Insurance Fraud Division in the Maryland Insurance Administration, pursuant to Maryland Labor & Employment.

The Justice referred to City of Mecca (1879), 5 P D 28 where Sir Robert Phillimore held that the English Court of Admiralty could and ought to enforce an in rem judgment of a Foreign Admiralty Court, on the grounds of international comity (reversed on appeal not on a point of law, but because, like the subject case, the foreign judgment was in personam only.)

If necessary, we can refer your case to appeals boards or the Local Government Ombudsman, who have the power to make LEAs reconsider their decisions.