Sentences with phrase «as exclusive possession»

Once circumstances allow, victims of domestic violence should seek the advice of a family law lawyer to ensure their rights are protected with respect to issues such as exclusive possession of the family home,

Once circumstances allow, victims of domestic violence should seek the advice of a family law lawyer to ensure their rights are protected with respect to issues such as exclusive possession of the family home, child custody and access, property division and child support.

The long and short of it is that process philosophy covers too vast a range to belong to one side or the other of this divide: it is too big to be owned as an exclusive possession of any one particular philosophical approach or tendency.

This applies whether vaunting charisms as the exclusive possession of certain chosen souls or seeking some sort of acceptable theological correctness: all are gathered to interact within the one body by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Not exact matches

For there is no longer a true experience of dependence, since the special privilege is regarded not as a gift but as an inalienable and exclusive right and possession.

As an appreciation to your loyal support we made sure to give all players in possession of Reus an exclusive 25 % discount for the upcoming month on Steam and GoG.

Your expectation of privacy in an unlocked smart phone flows from your exclusive possession of the phone as a piece of tangible personal property containing information, and not just from the password protection.

Roger Street... drafted what was described as a licence agreement which granted an exclusive right to possession — a significant hallmark commonly associated with a tenancy but not decisive.

As predicted by Litigation, the House of Lords last month unanimously ruled in favour of the occupier in Street v Mountford giving a kiss of death to exclusive possession licence agreements and, for good measure, a fatal peck to non-exclusive agreements.

Consequently, the prescription period as well as common - law adverse possession rule can confer upon the «squatting» unit - owner a right to exclusive use of the disputed space that extinguishes a claim for an allocation of exclusive use under a condominium declaration.

Normally a spouse is allowed to reenter the home after an order for exclusive possession for reasons such as the need to retrieve certain belongings or sometimes to exercise custody or access to children.

(e) «a tenancy agreement between an educational institution as landlord and a student of that institution as tenant if the tenant does not have exclusive possession of a self - contained dwelling unit»

When making an order for exclusive possession of the home, the court will consider the best interests of the children as paramount, along with the financial position of the parties, and any instances of domestic violence affecting the safety and wellbeing of all parties involved.

(Technically, however, the requirement to pay occupation rent can also arise under the common law, which does not have the exclusive - possession order as a pre-requisite).

Being granted exclusive possession is not the same thing as becoming the sole tenant, whether by taking the place of the perpetrator on the residential tenancy agreement, if the perpetrator was the sole tenant, or, if the parties are co-tenants, by having the perpetrator's tenancy terminated.

Nevertheless, amendments to the PAFVA and the other legislation under which exclusive possession of residential premises can be granted seems to be the better way to go, as they should provide better access to the relevant law for victims of domestic violence and those assisting them.

The perpetrator's right to possess the premises is altered by the exclusive possession order, but unless the order itself says otherwise, nothing in those statutes alters the perpetrator's responsibilities as a tenant to pay rent, provide a security deposit, etc..

As a practical matter, victims of domestic violence who are granted protection orders providing for conditions such as exclusive occupation or possession of the family home should advise their landlords of such, and preferably provide them with a copy of the order, particularly if they wish to change the locks or make arrangements to take over the residential tenancy agreemenAs a practical matter, victims of domestic violence who are granted protection orders providing for conditions such as exclusive occupation or possession of the family home should advise their landlords of such, and preferably provide them with a copy of the order, particularly if they wish to change the locks or make arrangements to take over the residential tenancy agreemenas exclusive occupation or possession of the family home should advise their landlords of such, and preferably provide them with a copy of the order, particularly if they wish to change the locks or make arrangements to take over the residential tenancy agreement.

The Family Law Act, SA 2003, c F - 4.5 (FLA), allows for exclusive possession orders to be made in relation to the family home as part of an order providing for child or spousal support, and can include an order evicting a spouse or adult interdependent partner and restraining them «from entering or attending at or near the family home» (section 68 (1)-RRB-.

In order to determine whether appellant's appeal of the temporary order awarding respondent exclusive possession of the marital home and requiring appellant to vacate acted as a stay, it is necessary to determine the nature of that order.

In relation to the confirmation provisions the inconsistency is between Indigenous interests on the one hand and non-Indigenous interests specified by way of a schedule to the Act or referred to generically as either «exclusive possession acts» or «non-exclusive possession acts».

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.

If, according to their traditional law and custom, spiritual sanctions are visited upon unauthorised entrants, and if they are the gatekeepers for the purpose of preventing such harm and avoiding injury to the country, then the native title holders have what the common law will recognise as an exclusive right of possession, use and occupation.

Rights that are broadly defined, including rights to exclusive possession, are capable of recognition as native title rights.

The Martu People held exclusive possession native title rights and interests already the subject of a court determination and there was strong evidence from a range of sources establishing Lake Disappointment as a site of great significance.

The expression of these rights and interests in these terms [the right to exclusive possession occupation use and enjoyment of the land] reflects not only the content of a right to be asked permission about how and by whom country may be used, but also the common law's concern to identify property relationships between people or things as rights of control over access to, and exploitation of, the place or thing.

On the other hand, the cases also appear to point to commercial rights being intrinsically connected to, and in fact requiring, exclusive possession in order to be granted as a native title right or interest.

The High Court decision provides a detailed history of the WLA and the nature of the interests created as part of its inquiry into whether the perpetual leases confers a right of exclusive possession.

commercial rights are intrinsically connected to, and require, exclusive possession, which will not be granted under the Native Title Act (as seen in the Croker Island case).

In those amendments, specific leases granted under s23 of the WLA and granted for the purpose of «agriculture, or any similar purpose; agriculture (or any similar purpose) and grazing combined; mixed farming or any similar purpose other than grazing» were scheduled as a previous exclusive possession act under NTA s23B (2)(c)(i) with the effect that native title was extinguished in these areas.

Section 23B (9A) provides that a vesting which involves the establishment of an area, such as a national, State or Territory park, for the purpose of preserving the natural environment of the area is not a previous exclusive possession act.

They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.

Consistent with the objective of treating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander land as similar as practicable to freehold land, where a project takes place on exclusive possession native title land, the Crown's consent is not required.

In concrete, the High Court should uphold the finding of Justices Lee and North that enclosure of and improvements to pastoral leases in Western Australia [99] were not such as to confer a right of possession exclusive of Aboriginal people, and to the extent of any inconsistency between the rights of pastoral leaseholders and native title rights and interests, did not extinguish but had the effect of suspending native title rights and interests.

Examples of temporary orders that the judge may enter include: temporary child support, temporary maintenance (formerly known as alimony), contribution to marital expenses (like the mortgage), exclusive possession of the marital residence, and orders of protection.

For example, in the Croker Island case, if such a determination had been made, the specification of other rights such as the right to use and control resources, the right to trade and the right to protect places of importance would not have been crucial because, in effect, they are all subsumed under the global right of exclusive possession.

As Chapter 2 explored, in relation to lands that are subject to native title, the rights over those lands are diverse and range from exclusive possession to rights of access to land.