Sentences with phrase «application in court questioned»

Not exact matches

Based on evidence from state courts, where its application is wildly uneven in remarkably similar cases, the political question doctrine does not have much force of its own.

«Ross [the application] can, for example, predict the outcome of court cases, suggest readings or answer a wide variety of legal precedent questions, at any point in a legal process.

The Court then proceeded to investigate whether the CFR precluded the application of the Slovak procedural rules in question.

Annabel Kay a solicitor in Higgs» Private Client team who specialises in applications to the Court of Protection and matters where mental capacity is questioned, believes the case highlights an important issue for those undertaking such a crucial role.

By contrast he saw the magistrates» duties as follows (at [16]-RRB-: «[O] n an application for a liability order the magistrates» court must proceed on the basis that the maintenance assessment in question was lawfully and properly made.

This new Protocol, which has been referred to as the «Protocol of the dialogue» by Dean Spielmann, the President of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), creates the possibility for supreme courts of the Contracting States to the Convention to request an advisory opinion from the ECtHR on «questions of principle relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedoms defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto» [1].

The Court confirmed that the concept includes «data concerning the medium to long - term consequences of those emissions on the environment, in particular information relating to residues in the environment following application of the product in question, and studies on the measurement of the substance's drift during that application, whether those data come from studies performed entirely or in part in the field or from laboratory or translocation studies» (case C - 442 / 14, paragraph 96).

Before the Court could find that the German rules in question were contrary to article 18 TFEU (which would be easy), it had to deal with the objection put forward by the German and French governments that the application of article 18 TFEU would deprive article 58 (1) of its useful effect.

If, as with investor state dispute settlement, such a claim would bypass the national courts and thus the preliminary ruling architecture, then the decision of the joint court would constitute an application of the EU law manifested in the withdrawal agreement with a result that would be binding upon the host Member State in question.

(i) «an application made by trustees of the will or settlement, asking the court to construe the trust instrument for their guidance; to ascertain the interest of the beneficiaries; or to answer a question which arises in the administration of the trusts.

The application is usually based on the principle that the application is being made to ascertain the interests of the beneficiaries, or to answer a question which arises in the administration of a trust, or for the Court to construe a document, or the like.

The matter then came before the Supreme Court of Canada, which was asked to address an important legal question: in cases where the support terms of an agreement have been incorporated into a court order, what is the proper approach by a court to an application to Court of Canada, which was asked to address an important legal question: in cases where the support terms of an agreement have been incorporated into a court order, what is the proper approach by a court to an application to court order, what is the proper approach by a court to an application to court to an application to vary?

The court has used its discretion to deny an application for the production of documents in the following two circumstances: firstly, where thousands of documents of only possible relevance are in question; and secondly, where the documents sought do not have significant probative value and the value of production is outweighed by competing interests such as confidentiality and time and expense required for the party to produce the documents: Park at para. 15.

When faced with an application to vary an order, the court should not ignore a mutually - accepted separation agreement such as the one reached by these spouses; however, it will be only one of several factors that goes into the threshold question of whether there has been a «material change» in circumstances since the initial order was made.

The appellant argued that the Secretary of State's refusal of her application was incompatible with the Directive in question, though the First - tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and the Court of Appeal all rejected this argument.

A tenant may apply for an order reducing or extinguishing their liability to pay a particular administration charge in respect of litigation costs (ie costs incurred, or to be incurred in connection with proceedings before the court in question or, if the application is made after the proceedings are concluded, before the county court; the first tier or upper tribunal; or within arbitration proceedings or, after conclusion, the county court).

A new application form The C100 is being introduced for orders under the Children Act 1989 s 8 in place of the C1 which includes new questions about the use of mediation before going to court and is more user friendly with simplifi ed language and additional direct questions and «tick box» responses.

Unfortunately, since the Court decided against the applicability of the Visa Code in the case of X and X, it was not required to look further into the question of whether Member States» authorities should assess applications made under Article 25 of the Visa Code in the light of Articles 4 and / or 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights or any other international obligation by which they are bound.

He grounds this on the requirements of the CILFIT test: accordingly the UKSC will be under an obligation to refer unless (i) the question raised is irrelevant; (ii) the EU provision in question has already been interpreted by the Court; or (iii) the correct application of EU law is so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt.

Within the scope of application of EU law national courts can already now apply higher standards of fundamental rights protection based on the ECHR and are obliged in cases of doubt to submit a question to the CJEU in the framework of a preliminary reference procedure.

[Draftsman turns to Mr Z: «If you are a former client of a lawyer who holds, or whose firm holds, confidential information of yours which might reasonably be expected to be material where an issue arises between you and another client of that firm, you can apply to the High Court by claim (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Pt 8); or by application in any court proceedings in which the question arises... etc&raqCourt by claim (Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Pt 8); or by application in any court proceedings in which the question arises... etc&raqcourt proceedings in which the question arises... etc»].

The standard of review applicable to a ministerial decision that involves some interpretation or application of its «home» statute (s) seems to be a matter of question these days, notwithstanding that the Supreme Court of Canada attempted to simplify matters on standard of review with its 2008 decision in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 9, [2008] 1 SCR 190.

Economism — the simplistic, unreflecting application of Economics 101 models to complex, real - world issues — is particularly influential in the law, including both legal academia and actual court opinions that decide important questions.

Having rejected a wide interpretation of the term «provided» and also having refused the application of additional criteria to Article 12 (1) by analogy, the CJEU also replied negatively to the question of the German court whether any further criteria had to be taken into consideration in addition to those contained in Article 12 (1) and 2 (b) with systematic coherence and judicial constraint.

In granting Knecht's application for leave to appeal, Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Jack Watson wrote: «[T] he chief has an arguable case regarding the questions.

In response to the mother's application, the father filed a Notice of Constitutional Question indicating his intention to challenge the jurisdiction of the court and the applicability of the Family Law Act to the dispute.

The recent Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of Unison) v Lord Chancellor that makes employment tribunal fees unlawful raises important questions for affected claimants and employers, says Andrew Masters, a Partner and Head of Employment at UK law firm Furley Page.

Indeed, in this landmark judgment the Court stated that «the correct application of Community law may be so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt as to the manner in which the question raised is to be resolved» (paragraph 16).

The question remained whether it was open to the court to reach that conclusion or whether it was bound by the decision of the House of Lords in R (on the application of Gentle) v Prime Minister [2008] 3 All ER 1 to hold that on the assumed facts a soldier who lost his life as the deceased had was at the relevant time outside the jurisdiction of the UK for the purposes of Art 1 of the Convention.

On judicial review the chambers justice dismissed the application on the basis that he was bound by the Court of Appeal decision in Ostrensky v. Crowsnest Pass, 1996 ABCA 18 in regards to the effect of a tie vote and that the privative clause in the Teaching Profession Act «insulated all decisions from judicial review except on questions of jurisdiction».

The matter became more tangled when Lukács was suspended without pay for three months as a penalty for making public the name of the graduate student in question in his court application, and, too, for insubordination.

In the present case, it is common ground, that the amount of the public contract at issue in the main proceedings amounts to EUR 85,000, which is considerably below the thresholds for application laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2014/24... On the other hand, in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court has not provided any information enabling the Court to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis addedIn the present case, it is common ground, that the amount of the public contract at issue in the main proceedings amounts to EUR 85,000, which is considerably below the thresholds for application laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2014/24... On the other hand, in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court has not provided any information enabling the Court to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis addedin the main proceedings amounts to EUR 85,000, which is considerably below the thresholds for application laid down in Article 4 of Directive 2014/24... On the other hand, in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court has not provided any information enabling the Court to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis addedin Article 4 of Directive 2014/24... On the other hand, in its reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court has not provided any information enabling the Court to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis addedin its reference for a preliminary ruling, the referring court has not provided any information enabling the Court to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis adcourt has not provided any information enabling the Court to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis adCourt to... demonstrate the existence of a certain cross-border interest... In those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis addedIn those circumstances, the Court finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis adCourt finds itself unable to provide a useful answer to the question raised... (C - 486 / 17, paras 17 - 22, references omitted, own translation from French and emphasis added).

The district court ruled that it could not decide from the facts before it the question of whether Palmer / Kane knowingly provided inaccurate information to the Copyright Office in the registration application.

So construed question of law would include (without attempting anything like an exhaustive definition which would be impossible) questions touching the scope, effect or application of a rule of law which the courts apply in determining the rights of parties; and by long usage, the term question of law has come to be applied to questions which, when arising at a trial by a judge and jury, would fall exclusively to the judge for determination.»

In deciding that wrongful dismissal damages were not an appropriate matter for summary judgment, the court's reasoning expressly went beyond the question of the jurisdiction of a Master under the Court of Queen's Bench Act, but rather was based upon «the purpose and nature of summary judgment applications, trials and summary trials» (at paragraphcourt's reasoning expressly went beyond the question of the jurisdiction of a Master under the Court of Queen's Bench Act, but rather was based upon «the purpose and nature of summary judgment applications, trials and summary trials» (at paragraphCourt of Queen's Bench Act, but rather was based upon «the purpose and nature of summary judgment applications, trials and summary trials» (at paragraph 31).

It initially addressed Article 34 SCA, emphasizing that the procedure established a «special means of judicial cooperation» between the Court and national courts (para 53), which was «completely independent» of any initiative by the parties in the case, although of course in practice often an application to submit a question to the EFTA Court will be made by a party to a dispute (para 55).

«In any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from --(a) giving evidence on any matter; or answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence, on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.&raquIn any proceedings in which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from --(a) giving evidence on any matter; or answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence, on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.&raquin which a court is hearing an application for an order under Part IV or V, no person shall be excused from --(a) giving evidence on any matter; or answering any question put to him in the course of his giving evidence, on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.&raquin the course of his giving evidence, on the ground that doing so might incriminate him or his spouse of an offence.»

Their lordships agreed that the definition of deprivation of liberty was a «grey zone»» and, fol lowing the European Court of Human Rights in Guzzardi v Italy (Application 7367/76)(1980) 3 EHRR 533, a question of «degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance».

And here, since it appears from the statement in the order of the Court of Appeal that the question whether the Syndicalism Act and its application in this case was repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment was considered and passed upon by that court — this being a federal question constituting an appropriate ground for a review of the judgment — we conclude that this Court has acquired jurisdiction under the writ of eCourt of Appeal that the question whether the Syndicalism Act and its application in this case was repugnant to the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment was considered and passed upon by that court — this being a federal question constituting an appropriate ground for a review of the judgment — we conclude that this Court has acquired jurisdiction under the writ of ecourt — this being a federal question constituting an appropriate ground for a review of the judgment — we conclude that this Court has acquired jurisdiction under the writ of eCourt has acquired jurisdiction under the writ of error.

The terms of Article 8 of Law No 3 of 2008 have no application to such questions, as is clear from the decisions of the DIFC Court of Appeal in Fidel v Felecia CA -002-2015 at paragraph 55 and, more particularly, in Protiviti Member Firm (Middle East) Ltd v Mohammed Bib Hamad Abdul - Karim Al - Mojil and another CA -003-2016 at paragraphs 26 - 35, when it considered how the principles of forum non conveniens might apply in the DIFC.

The question presented was whether the trial court erroneously assigned to the mother the burden to prove that the child's placement with her was in the child's best interests, because an established custodial environment existed with the grandparents, and whether the court's application of the Rummelt test constituted clear legal error and violated mother's fundamental liberty interest in raising her children.

Article 42 provides for the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards, on application to the DIFC Court, regardless of the origin of the award in question and whether it is a New York Convention award or not.

The judge commented that from the three often quoted cases of Page v Hewetts Solicitors [2013] EWHC 2845 (Ch), Lewis v Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch), and Bhatti v Asghar [2016] EWHC 1049 (QB), dealing with the question whether a party could lose his rights to bring a claim or to make an application because of an error in the court office, case law had developed a «somewhat hard edged principle».

Re Anglo American Insurance Co Ltd [2002] BCC 715 (Neuberger J. — Chancery Division) Questions arising in relation to applications by joint provisional liquidators for letters requesting assistance from two overseas Courts.

Advising and representing executors in relation to the continued application of the rule in Parker v Felgate and in the Court of Appeal on the question of whether executors are able to recover their own legal costs where the principal beneficiary is separately represented.

In this class of cases, we think the rule of action which should govern the civil courts, founded in a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before theIn this class of cases, we think the rule of action which should govern the civil courts, founded in a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before thein a broad and sound view of the relations of church and state under our system of laws, and supported by a preponderating weight of judicial authority, is that whenever the questions of discipline or of faith or ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the highest of these church judicatories to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such decisions as final and as binding on them in their application to the case before thein their application to the case before them.

Moreover, requiring a parent to question the degree of maturity of a particular child prior to knowing exactly what objections might be brought forward in the application (for fear that a court might simply hear the child's objections without assessing their degree of maturity) may have the effect of slowing down what should necessarily be an expedited process.

The private right of action contains a limitation clause that says unless a court holds otherwise, no one can bring an application later than three years after the day on which the applicant first knew of the CASL violation in question.

The amendments (ss.2 (e) and 47) confer jurisdiction to hear all questions relating to international commercial arbitrations, including applications for the enforcement of foreign awards, to the High Courts (i.e., the highest court in each state).

Meanwhile in X and Van Dijk, the Gerechtshof (court of appeal) in Den Bosch asked preliminary questions on the application of the social security provisions of Regulation 1408/71 to Rhine boatmen falling under the international Rhine Agreement.