Sentences with phrase «court accepted»

The Court accepted that the present day value of the Plaintiff's future need for Lyrica totalled $ 147,939.

The High Court accepted that argument but the Court of Appeal did not.

The court accepted that the unions wanted to ensure that all employers active in the Swedish labour market had to pay wages (and apply other terms and conditions) in line with those usual in Sweden, to establish fair competition on an equal basis between Swedish and foreign employers, but then said directly that none of those considerations constituted sufficient grounds of public policy, security or health, and so justification had not been established.

But compelling a smoker to stop their habit did not, although the court accepted that there may be rare cases where the protection of mental stability requires smoking facilities to be made available.

The only submission of the Respondent that the court accepted in consideration of damages was that the Applicant had failed to prove any loss arising from the inability to secure the loan, and had failed to mitigate any loss he may have occurred.

The appeals court accepted that the chemical structure of DNA, once removed from a cell was «markedly different» from the DNA found in nature, that is within the chromosone.

Following this reasoning the court accepted that the interpretation exception should be recognised as a new exception to the Rule.

After two arguments at the Supreme Court, in the middle of which the matter was remanded for a hearing at the trial level, the Supreme Court accepted our position and rejected hypnotically refreshed testimony in any case in New Jersey.

He also offers a selection of major cases in which, he says, that the U.S. Supreme Court accepted a line of argument that was based more on an argument from ignorance than from substantial evidence.

The High Court accepted Wastell's solicitor's argument that Woodward's negligence «arose out of the use» of his van.

But when the court accepted the privacy commissioner's arguments that the offender's actions could undermine the administration of justice, harm participants in the justice system and potentially discourage people from accessing the justice system, there was no acknowledgement that the same concerns go directly to the heart of the open - court principle and balanced interests that supported the first complete publication of the same document.

As regards standing, the most striking aspect of the judgment is that the Court accepted the Frente's entitlement to plead as a «moral person», with the «necessary autonomy» to challenge a decision of the EU legislator (paras. 50 - 53), without reference to the sui generis character of Frente Polisario or to the unique situation of Western Sahara.

She suffered PTSD and a generalized anxiety disorder following the crash and the Court accepted these conditions were caused by the collision.

At trial, Judge W. Pepler of the Alberta Provincial Court accepted evidence on the use of marihuana for medical purposes.

This week the United States Supreme Court accepted for consideration the case of Foster v. Humphrey, regarding Georgia prosecutors» use of peremptory challenges to strike every black juror in the jury pool in the defendant's case.

The court accepted the submissions of Shtaif and Roberts that the trial judge erred in finding liability against them for the IPO - related Statements, for several reasons.

Court accepted review after receiving amicus brief and then agreed with the Exxon / ATRA position, overturning a punitive damages award of over $ 2.3 million in December 2014

The Court accepted none of these approaches and instead clarified and materially modified the «bright line» rule.

Although the court accepted «there appears to be a promise in the summary of the invention... that the IOP reduction will be significantly greater and the side effects similar or reduced over the compounds of the «417 [genus]», «there is no reference to reduced side effects or advantages over the genus in the claims».

While the Court accepted that ``... when a search provision is part of a regulatory scheme, the target's reasonable expectation of privacy may be reduced», the Court said at para. 44 that:

In short both parties plead guilty to the offence and joint submissions (ie a plea bargain) were made which the Court accepted.

Appeal decision (for stay of proceedings pending appeal): Although the court accepted V had a serious question to be decided, and he would suffer «irreparable harm» if the decision to refuse his application were not stayed (meaning harm that could neither be quantified in monetary terms nor cured), the «balance of convenience» did not favour a stay.

The Tax Court accepted Ms. Guindon's argument and vacated the assessment.

The Court accepted that a franchise relationship is close to an employer / employee relationship.

However, the Divisional Court accepted the Secretary of State's argument that the only appropriate relief for this unlawfulness was declaratory, and that it was not appropriate to make an order disapplying the unlawful parts of the 2016 Act.

Whilst the court accepted Proactive's argument that Rooney's image rights were ancillary to his main trade of professional footballer, it crucially stated that the contract nevertheless limited the extent to which he could take advantage of the earning capacity associated with that trade.

In a unanimous decision, the Court accepted Federation arguments that a claim that documents should be exempt from disclosure because they are protected by solicitor - client privilege should not be subject to a public interest override provision.

Although the court accepted that the disputed material was posted on the nationally accessible Government of Canada website, the court did not reach a final conclusion on whether there was publication.

Despite this, and despite some reliability concerns the trial judge raised with the Plaintiff's evidence, the Court accepted the Plaintiff sustained real injury.

The Court accepted that the scheme was contrived solely for the purposes of opposing the grant of a new tenancy, that the scheme was not financially viable and that the scheme actually rendered the property unusable for want of planning permission.

On January 24, 2018, over a month after the court accepted Fantino's appeal notice, Paolone requested a case conference call with Madam prothonotary Aylen of the Federal Court of Canada — NOT the Federal Court of Appeal where Fantino had filed his case.

Ultimately Madam Justice Loo of the BC Supreme Court accepted that the Plaintiff did suffer an MTBI in the collision and that he was competitively unemployable as a result.

The consequences of this never fully resolved and the Court accepted she would struggle with life long difficulties.

The court accepted the submissions of Heiltsuk and Kitasoo Xai'Xais that where the Crown must balance multiple interests, a safeguard requiring that Canada set out how Aboriginal concerns impact decision - making is important.

Had the dismissal not been set aside, and had the Court accepted that the plaintiff was catastrophically impaired, the negligence claim would have been substantial.

The Court accepted that the phrase «legal and other costs» was wide enough to include recovery of third - party funding costs, and that there had been no «serious irregularity» under s68 (2)(b) of the Arbitration Act, as had been alleged by Essar.

As a result, the Court accepted that the items had been purchased with the proceeds of crime and were recoverable despite there being no actual proven link between the money and crime.

The Court accepted that there were «material differences» between the format of the relationship and a «conventional, traditional» working arrangement.

The injuries were on - going at the time of trial and the Court accepted that the symptoms would linger into the future.

Additionally, the court accepted evidence that Indigenous women are particularly vulnerable, in light of the greater prevalence of trauma, violence, and abuse in their pasts.»

Equally important for the coming year, the Supreme Court accepted five additional cases for review in 2017 — that will be decided in 2018 — that also will impact and shape class action litigation and government enforcement lawsuits faced by employers.

The Court accepted Jason D. Singer's argument that she had sustained a serious and permanent injury, meeting the Threshold despite returning to work as her normal activities and enjoyment of life had still been affected.

In particular, the Court accepted that, in this case, the instruments accurately reflected the true agreement of the parties.

The Supreme Court accepted the Plaintiff's arguments and found that it is nearly certain that the Indiana legislature intended for USPS certified mail, USPS registered mail, and commercial couriers to all be viewed the same in the eyes of the law for purposes of determining a date of filing.

The prognosis was not known as the Court accepted that the Plaintiff was not compliant with all suggested treatments and accordingly his injury may still be subject to improvement.

The Court accepted that the plaintiff's claim was due to the hazard that resulted from the ski resort's negligence in maintaining and operating its snow - making equipment, and that the hazard was unexpected and would not normally occur on a ski facility.

However, in Commission v. Germany, the Commission's case proved to be too weak: While the Court accepted in principle that a less favourable treatment of dividends could constitute an obstacle to the free movement of capital (para 15), it was not convinced by the Commission's arguments.

Accordingly, the court accepted the claimant's suggested discount fi gure of 0.95 resulting in a bigger multiplier and a higher loss of earnings claim.

The appeals court accepted that the chemical structure of DNA, once removed from a cell was «markedly different» from... [more]

Finally, the Supreme Court accepted, as was common ground on the appeal, that the business efficacy test did not require «absolute necessity»: a better formulation, suggested by Lord Sumption in argument, may be that «a term can only be implied if, without the term, the contract would lack commercial or practical coherence».