Sentences with phrase «appeals against the appellants»

In Justice Mohammed's judgment, which was read on his behalf by Justice Ejembi Eko, the apex court resolved all the three issues raised in the appeals against the appellants.

Not exact matches

«Requiring the banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent Libor ‐ denominated derivative swap would, if appellants» allegations were proved at trial, not only bankrupt 16 of the world's most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated,» the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York said in the ruling.A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rAppeals in New York said in the ruling.A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rappeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rigging.

But in the three judgments on Thursday, the Justice Gumel - led panel of the appeal court upheld the appeals against the tribunal's verdicts filed on behalf of the the appellants by their lawyer, B. E. I. Nwofor (SAN).

At the hearing of the appeal, Daudu faulted the judgment of the appeal court on among other grounds that it erroneously affirmed the competence of the proceedings of the Code of Conduct Tribunal, which sat on the appellant's case with only two members as against the three provided for in the provisions of Paragraph 15 (1) of the Fifth Schedule to the 1999 Constitution.

He directed that the appellants should raise the issues in their interlocutory appea ls in when they file substantive appeals which they wish to file against the Court of Appeal's judgment delivered on Thursday.

However, in considering the main appeal, a panel of five Justices of the Supreme Court in a unanimous judgment today resolved all the issues against the appellant (Daudu) and accordingly dismissed the appeal in its entirety.

Case Wind Farm Location Year Type Decision Town of Falmouth v. Town of Falmouth Zoning Board of Appeals & others Falmouth Massachusetts 2013 Higher Against wind farm Lawrence J. Frigault et al., Respondents - Appellants, v. Town of Richfield Planning Board et...

The appellant appealed against both his conviction and a sentence of 12 months» imprisonment.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appellant's appeal against a finding that the local authority's housing duty to her had been discharged, held that the reviewing officer had been entitled to find that there was no medical evidence that a property of its type would have the consequence that the appellant's mental health would be so affected by it as to make it reasonable for her to refuse to accept it in all the circumstances of the case.

The appellants appealed against both the findings against them and the sentences imposed.

The proceedings arose out of a possession order obtained against the second appellant and an anti-social behaviour injunction against both appellants, in December 2004, which they appealed.

By the time the appeal against the possession order, which also involved the anti-social behaviour order, both appellants were represented by SWL.

It is only comparatively rarely, at least in family cases involving children, that an Art 8 of the Convention appeal against refusal of asylum and leave to enter should be dismissed on the basis that it would be proportionate and more appropriate for the appellant to apply for leave from abroad.

Blue Holdings v Unites States of America [2014] EWCA Civ 1291: Appearing for the Appellants in their successful appeal against a worldwide freezing order obtained by the US Government.

The appellant submits that he has three grounds of appeal: that the chambers judge erred in concluding that the damages could not be quantified; that the judge erred in dismissing the claim when the appellant already had two default judgments against the defendants; and that the judge erred by dismissing the claim on his own motion without notice to the appellant...

[3] The appellant now appeals against her conviction on two grounds.

The Court of Appeal rejected the Appellant's submission that the Court's interpretation of the Charter in Legroulx was not sine qua non the question and that Charter values can still lend support for the argument against civil jury fees.

Similarly, in Erdmann v Complaints Inquiry Committee, 2016 ABCA 145 (CanLII), Justices Jack Watson, Bruce McDonald and Frederica Schutz dismissed an appeal of a professional disciplinary body's decision against the appellant, where she had been found guilty of three counts of unprofessional conduct as a chartered accountant and ordered to pay fines and costs.

A majority of the Court of Appeal (Justices Bruce McDonald and Barbara Lea Veldhuis) upheld the case management judge's decision striking the appellant's statement of claim in relation to a motor vehicle accident and issuing an order for costs against him.

Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of «deport first; appeal later» is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal.

The Court of Appeal determined that the effect of the order under appeal was to «permanently foreclose» the Appellant from obtaining a determination of its claims against the personal defendants on their merits — a result that amounted to an injuAppeal determined that the effect of the order under appeal was to «permanently foreclose» the Appellant from obtaining a determination of its claims against the personal defendants on their merits — a result that amounted to an injuappeal was to «permanently foreclose» the Appellant from obtaining a determination of its claims against the personal defendants on their merits — a result that amounted to an injustice.

Vivian Chapman QC and Edward Hewitt represented the successful appellants in this appeal against the finding of two prescriptive rights of way over their land and the calculation of damages for trespass.

A firm of accountants appealed against a decision of the Court of Appeal in which it was decided that the accountants owed a duty of care to the appellant shareholders when producing an audit report required by statute.

Where an appeal is unsuccessful costs may be awarded against the appellant.

In Hupacasath First Nation v. Minister of Foreign Affairs Canada, [12] the Federal Court of Appeal found against one First Nation appellant seeking consultation prior to the ratification of a bilateral investment treaty with China.

Finally, the Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's argument that the Crown's treatment of «Terrio» the co-accused was actually a reflection of bias against the Appellant.

Costs of the appeal of $ 35,000 ordered against the appellant husband.

Costs of the appeal of $ 35,000 were awarded against the appellant husband — one of the highest costs awards for a family law appeal so far this year.

The Appellant, Mr. Jason Fountain appeals against his convictions for armed robbery, forcible confinement, and breaking / entering to commit an indictable offence.

The Appellant appeals against his conviction for assault causing bodily harm, assault with a weapon, unlawful confinement, and related offences.

The original trial judge said that that previous case, in which the Crown took a case against Wallace Duncan Smith, meant «that the Crown Court had jurisdiction to try the appellants for their conduct because a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime took place in England,» according to the Court of Appeal.

The Appellant appeals from a summary judgment decision dismissing her action against the Respondents, Toronto Police Services Board and Detective Constable Andrew MacPhail, for wrongful arrest and negligent investigation of criminal charges.

These findings are subsequently upheld by the Court of Appeal and the Attorney General stays the charges against the Appellants.

The appellant appealed against conviction on the basis that the statement was privileged.

CMA Nurseries Ltd v Secretary of State for Education (2015) Successfully represented the appellant Orthodox Jewish School in an appeal against the SSE's decision to remove it from the register of independent schools.

Rule 34A (2A) provides: «If the Appeal Tribunal allows an appeal, in full or in part, it may make a costs order against the respondent specifying the respondent pay to the appellant an amount no greater than any fee paid by the appellant under a notice issued by the Lord Chancellor&rAppeal Tribunal allows an appeal, in full or in part, it may make a costs order against the respondent specifying the respondent pay to the appellant an amount no greater than any fee paid by the appellant under a notice issued by the Lord Chancellor&rappeal, in full or in part, it may make a costs order against the respondent specifying the respondent pay to the appellant an amount no greater than any fee paid by the appellant under a notice issued by the Lord Chancellor».

8.12.3 Provided the Registrar and the other parties have been notified in writing, an application by an appellant for public funding or legal aid suspends the commencement of proceedings and the time limits in rules 11 and 19 are extended until 28 days after the determination of the application for public funding or legal aid (including any appeals against a refusal of funding).

The appellants, Angelo Caparelli and 2292819 Ontario Inc («229), appealed a summary judgment against them in favour of Nadeau and 1117251 Ontario Inc («111»), a corporation controlled by Nadeau.

Ilford Cellular v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 435 (TC) David Bedenham acted for HMRC in this appeal against a denial of input tax on the basis that the relevant taxable supply was connected with MTIC fraud and the Appellant should have known of that connection.

Romanova v Sloutsker: for the appellant Russian journalist on behalf of Media Law Defence Initiative in her challenge to Court of Appeal against jurisdiction judgment -LRB-[2015] EWHC 545 (QB)-RRB- permitting the libel claim of a Russian oligarch to be brought in the English courts.

The appellant appealed against both decisions.

In Ramzan, five of the appellants took the Saik point and applied for leave to appeal against conviction out of time.

In this case the first and second appellant appealed against a decision refusing them permission to instruct independent experts in care proceedings regarding their child.

The Court of Appeal is not necessarily precluded from hearing appeals by the secretary of state for work and pensions on jurisdictional points against a decision of a social security commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was the successful appellant before the commissioner; a social security commissioner does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a legally qualified panel member who has refused to extend time or who has struck out a proposed appeal for want of jurisdiAppeal is not necessarily precluded from hearing appeals by the secretary of state for work and pensions on jurisdictional points against a decision of a social security commissioner, notwithstanding the fact that he was the successful appellant before the commissioner; a social security commissioner does not have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a legally qualified panel member who has refused to extend time or who has struck out a proposed appeal for want of jurisdiappeal from a legally qualified panel member who has refused to extend time or who has struck out a proposed appeal for want of jurisdiappeal for want of jurisdiction.

Notable mandates: Counsel for the successful appellant at the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v. Nikolaisen; counsel for Potash Corp. in matters relating to the expansion of its Rocanville mine; ongoing work in the restructuring of the pork industry, including CCAA proceedings and receiverships; acted for Northland Power in the development and construction of two gas - powered generating plants; represented Great Western Diamonds in its recent acquisition of the Brazilian operations of Santa Elina Mines; appointed as counsel by the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to argue on a reference against the constitutionality of proposed legislation permitting marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same sex marriages.

Ilford Cellular v HMRC [2013] UKFTT 435 (TC) VAT appeal against a denial of input tax on the basis that the relevant taxable supply was connected with MTIC fraud and the Appellant should have known of that connection.

The appellant also appeals against that portion of the costs award that granted costs to the respondent on a substantial indemnity basis from the date of its offer to settle.

Plaintiff - Appellant Richard Lee Pollard, a federal inmate, appeals the district court's order dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims against employees of a private corporation operating a federal prison under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.

The appellant confirms that she does not have the ability to pay any costs that may be awarded against her in the event that she loses the appeal.