Sentences with phrase «appellant appealed a judgment»

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...

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.

Not exact matches

«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.

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 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 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 appellants led by Biyi Poroye are the state executives of the Sheriff faction of the party in the various states in the South - West zone, are backing Jimoh Ibrahim, who was only removed and replaced with Jegede as the party's governorship candidate in Ondo State by the judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal, Abuja on Wednesday.

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.

Summary: The appellant requested the Supreme Court to revert the judgment of the Svea Court of Appeal, declaring the arbitral award invalid.

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...

A majority of the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Provincial Court (Chrumka J.) declaring the appellant, Derek Dwight Bruce, guilty on counts of breaking and entering, committing assault causing bodily harm and possession of a wAppeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Alberta Provincial Court (Chrumka J.) declaring the appellant, Derek Dwight Bruce, guilty on counts of breaking and entering, committing assault causing bodily harm and possession of a wappeal from a judgment of the Alberta Provincial Court (Chrumka J.) declaring the appellant, Derek Dwight Bruce, guilty on counts of breaking and entering, committing assault causing bodily harm and possession of a weapon.

While we acknowledge that a debt action should not be routinely turned into an oppression action, the conduct of the appellants is considerably more than the mere failure to pay a judgment or appeal that judgment.

[1] This appeal is from the judgment of Justice Edward P. Belobaba dismissing the appellant's application for an order that the respondents disclose the identities of confidential sources for a story written by the respondent Sinclair Stewart and published by the respondent the Globe and Mail Inc..

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.

The Court of Appeal handed down their judgment last Friday after considering whether the Employment Tribunal was correct to hold in a decision dated 16th April 2012 that the respondent, Gary Smith, was a worker within the meaning of section 230 (3)(b) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the ERA) and regulation 2 (1) of the Working Time Regulations 1998 (the WTR) and his working situation fell within the definition of employment in section 83 (2)(a) ofthe Equality Act 2010 (the EA) during the period that he worked for Pimlico Plumbers, the first appellant.

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...

[1] The Appellant moves for a stay of the judgment of Hackland J. dated November 26, 2012, pending the hearing of his appeal from that judgment.

Pourghazi v Kamyab (Court of Appeal)[2015] EWCA Civ 562 Acting for the respondent to an appeal and obtaining an order that, unless the appellant paid # 950,000 (the part of the judgment which was not subject to the appeal) to the respondent, the appeal would be strucAppeal)[2015] EWCA Civ 562 Acting for the respondent to an appeal and obtaining an order that, unless the appellant paid # 950,000 (the part of the judgment which was not subject to the appeal) to the respondent, the appeal would be strucappeal and obtaining an order that, unless the appellant paid # 950,000 (the part of the judgment which was not subject to the appeal) to the respondent, the appeal would be strucappeal) to the respondent, the appeal would be strucappeal would be struck out.

With respect to the Appellant's first ground, the Court of Appeal found the argument summary judgment should not have been granted on the basis proceedings were still at an early stage in their development «overlooks the direction provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2014] S.C.J. No. 7 (S.C.C.), at paras. 49 and 66, that summary judgment is to be granted where the record enables to motion judge to reach a fair and just determination on the merits and to do so in a timely, more affordable and proportionate manner.»

In two unanimous decisions of the Ontario Court of Appeal, Justice MacPherson allowed the appeals, set aside the judgments of the application judges, and declared both insurance company appellants did not have to defend or indemnify the respondents in the underlying actions.

Coke - Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales -[2011] UKSC 1 - The outcome of the Supreme Court's first judgment of 2011 is that the appellant (represented by Joseph Curl of 9 Stone Buildings) has succeeded in reversing the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the High Court.

The Appellant produced lengthy grounds and allegedly supporting documents on the basis of which he obtained permission to appeal but in giving its judgment the Court of Appeal dismissed each of the 10 complaints put foappeal but in giving its judgment the Court of Appeal dismissed each of the 10 complaints put foAppeal dismissed each of the 10 complaints put forward.

The judgment was handed down in an appeal filed before it on the ground that a Decree issued by one of the Emirates which restricted the right of the appellant to file a civil claim before the court of competent jurisdiction was unconstitutional because, it was said, that it denied the appellant's constitutional right to have unfettered access to the civil courts of the country.

In doing so, the Court of Appeal re-stated the heavy burden on a party seeking to overturn findings of credibility, referring to the Supreme Court judgments in McGraddie v McGraddie [2013] UKSC 58 and Henderson v Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] UKSC 41 and concluded that on none of the bases put forward did the Appellant come close to discharging that burden.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and gave judgment for the appeAppeal allowed the appeal and gave judgment for the appeappeal and gave judgment for the appellant.

The Judge further held that the Court of Appeal's judgment in Timbrell v SSWP [2010] 3 C.M.L.R. 42 did not assist the Appellant because it was concerned solely with the position before the Gender Recognition Act 2004 came into force.

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.

Sir Anthony Clarke MR, delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court of Appeal, was clear that (para 12) «there was an interference with the liberty of the appellants which amounted to the tort of false imprisonment unless it was lawful».

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.

This was an appeal from a judgment granting the respondent lawyer and respondent law firm («the lawyers») judgment on a claim for unpaid legal fees and dismissing the appellant's counterclaim for solicitor negligence.

At the full hearing of the appeal on 6 December 2017 Flaux and Moylan LJJ accepted the explanation provided by counsel for the Appellants that when she had appeared before Vos LJ she had been unaware of the earlier judgment.

Since the Court of Appeal determined s. 9 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act operates to bar the Appellant's claim, there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and the Motion Judge's decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the Respondents was upheld.

[25] Turning then to the substance of the second ground of appeal, the appellants submit that granting partial summary judgment on the misrepresentation issue provides minimal, if any, efficiency as the action is proceeding to trial on the negligence, breach of contract, and Arthur Wishart Act claims.

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

In this case, the appellant may have avoided the loss of her appeal rights, but the decision also underscores the importance of understanding the appeal process following a judgment entered by the trial court.

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's counsel, Philip Moser, argued the Court of Appeal judgment imposed onerous obligations on agents, many of whom were of limited means, who would bear some costs of instructing valuers to quantify the agency value, denying them an effective remedy under the Directive.

The appellants, the City of Ottawa and Raymond Richer, appealed from the trial judgment assigning 20 % liability to them for a serious motor vehicle accident.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of the appellant's motion to set aside the judgment and for relief from forfeiture with respect to the default under the mortgage.

The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants» submission that r. 6.1.01 applies to summary judgment motions.