Sentences with phrase «appellant appealed»

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.

Enmax Energy Corp. v. TransAlta Generation Partnership 2015 ABCA 383 Arbitration — Estoppel Summary: The appellant appealed a chambers judge's decision where he held that the parties to an arbitration were not bound by a prior arbitration award involving the same parties, that a party (in this case, the respondent) was not estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, and that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply to arbitration awards.

The appellant appealed against both decisions.

The Appellant appealed to the Alta.

The Appellant appealed the chambers judge's decision insofar as he found the arbitrator was unreasonable in upholding indefinite restrictions.

The Appellant appealed to the Ont.

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

The Appellant appealed to the Professional Conduct Appeal Committee, which sat a panel of four members to decide the appeal.

The appellant appealed to the House of Lords.

The appellant appealed to the Court of Session.

Summary: The appellant appealed a judgment by the Svea Court of Appeal to uphold an arbitral tribunal's finding that an arbitration clause applied to a dispute but to amend the tribunal's decision...

Summary: The appellant appealed to a judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, alleging that a Swedish arbitral award was invalid, as it resolved non-arbitrable issues breaching Swedish and Russian...

Summary: The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court a decision of the Svea Court of Appeal, which had rejected the appellant's application to declare an arbitral award invalid on the basis that...

Summary: The appellant appealed the dismissal of Swedish court proceedings, alleging that the counterparty waived its right to rely on the arbitration agreement by failing to pay its share of...

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

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

[2] The appellant appeals from his convictions.

A. Introduction and factual Background [2] The appellant appeals the judgment that the trial judge rendered on the common issues certified in this class proceeding.

The Appellants appeal; the Court of Appeal dismisses the appeal (see Chuang v. Toyota Canada Inc., 2016 ONCA 584 (CanLII)-RRB-.

The Appellant appeals on the basis that, since material facts and the credibility of the parties are disputed, there are genuine issues for trial.

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

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.

The Appellants appealed to the Divisional Court, arguing that the conduct reviewed by the OSC was almost exclusively conduct that had already been fully investigated by the MFDA — which had not imposed a sanction barring the Appellants from applying for reinstatement of their registrations — and that by refusing their application, the Commission had departed from its established practice of deferring to the determinations made by expert SROs such as the MFDA.

The appellants appealed the motion judge's ruling to this court.

The Appellant appeals, arguing s. 9 does not apply, because his claim is not for the destruction of the cattle, but for damage to his reputation and business.

The Chambers Judge grants summary judgment in favour of the Respondent and the Appellant appeals to the Court of Appeal.

The Appellants appealed all of these orders.

The appellant appeals the dismissal of her claim for increased retroactive and prospective spousal support on the basis of the respondent's post-separation income increased and the fact that she is medically unable to work full - time.

The appellants appeal the orders dismissing their RFDs.

The appellant appeals both the finding that the blog posts were libellous and the quantum of the damages award.

The appellant appeals the dismissal of his claim for his bonus and benefits during the 17 - month period of reasonable notice.

Not exact matches

«Appellants sustained their burden of showing injury by alleging that they paid artificially fixed higher prices,» Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs wrote for a three - judge appeals court panel.

«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.

Old Age Security appellants were provided with the first two levels only, although appeals related to income were, likewise, heard by the Tax Court of Canada.

(3) All appeals must include a copy of the adverse decision and a statement of the appellant's reasons for believing that the decision was not proper or made in accordance with applicable program regulations, policies, or procedures.

Although the Court dismissed the appeals: · the judgement was not unanimous, with two judges — Lord Kerr and Lady Hale — expressing support for the arguments made by the appellants and the BHA.

«Take notice that the appellant being dissatisfied with the decision of the governorship election tribunal for Rivers state, sitting in Abuja, contained in the judgment of the tribunal coram Hon. Justice Suleiman Ambursa (chairman), Hon. Justice Wesley Ibrahim Leha (member) and Hon. Justice Bayo Taiwo (member)(sitting in court no. 23 of the FCT high court dated the 24th of October 2015, doth hereby appeal to the court of appeal upon the grounds set out in paragraph 3 and will at the hearing seek the reliefs set out in paragraph 4,» the statement read.

However, Mr Sylvanus Tahir, Counsel to EFCC urged the court to dismiss the two appeals, adding that the appellants had opened their cases at the trial court.

The appellants had approached the apex court to set aside the May 24, 2016 decision of the Court of Appeal, Abuja, which dismissed Metuh and his company's no - case - submissions.

«We conclude that appellant has not satisfied his burden of persuasion to show that any substantial question of law or fact raised upon appeal is likely to result in reversal,» read the decision, which was filed Wednesday.

The appeal before the Supreme Court had 21 grounds upon which the appellant and his party were standing to demand that Osagie Ize - Iyamu be declared winner of the September 28 2016 governorship election.

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.

But the Justice Saulawa panel allowed Nwofor to restate his objection to the hearing of the appeal after Olanipekun had adopted the appellant's brief.

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).

The Court of Appeal had held that the appellants, having failed in that regard, their appeals were incompetent and the court lacked jurisdiction to hear them.

Delivering the Appeal Court judgement on Friday, the Presiding Judge of Court of Appeal, Kaduna, Justice Umani Abba Aji, said the lower tribunal was right in its rulings, which nullified the election of the first appellant, Hon. Mansir Aliyu Mashi.

Responding on points of law, Olanipekun said the notice of appeal was deemed abandoned having not been moved before he adopted his client's appellant brief.

The Justice Ibrahim Saulawa - led panel reserved judgment in the appeal after Jegede's lawyer, Chief Wole Olanipekun (SAN), adopted his client's appellant's brief amid opposition by respondents» lawyer, Mr. Ben Nwofor (SAN).

Even though the Appeal Court is well aware of the status of S. 140 (2) of the Electoral Act 2010, it, nevertheless, acted to the contrary, given its own observation in its judgment that: «Whether Section 140 (2) of the Electoral Act is extant or not, no advantage can be conferred on the Appellants by declaring the 1st Appellant as a winner on the grounds of his obtaining the second highest votes as elected.»

«The appellant has not shown sufficient interest in this appeal and how his interest will be affected by the outcome of the appeal,» Okeaya - Inneh said in his submission.