Sentences with phrase «decided by a high court»

Stare decisis is Latin for «to stand by a decision» and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

Christian Stuerwald and Mick Smith provide brief comments on an interesting case recently decided by the High Court, in which the High Court confirmed an arbitration tribunal's decision that the success fee a claimant pays to his litigation funder is recoverable from the losing defendant in certain circumstances.

Your claim will be decided by a High Court Judge or the Admiralty Registrar (a judicial officer who can manage the case).

In a landmark case decided by the High Court a Jewish couple have been given permission to agree their divorce settlement in the religious courts, by referring the matter back to their Rabbi.

Not exact matches

It is asking the Irish High Court to refer the case to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which would then decide whether to ban the use of «model contracts» — common legal arrangements used by thousands of firms to transfer personal data outside the 28 - nation bloc.

For the time being, however, the injunction has been lifted again - as of 9th September - by a higher court, not in order to pre-judge the case, but simply deciding that the ban was premature and disproportionate.

I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by other departments of the government.

The state's highest court will decide whether to make NYPD disciplinary records public in a case filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union with the support of multiple news organizations.

The battle for control of Britain's biggest union will be decided by a retired high court judge next year, a leaked document shows.

The High Court of Australia has held that the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, in deciding not to declare the Hamersley and Robe rail lines, wrongly endorsed consideration by the Australian Competition Tribunal of material it was not entitled to take into account.

There are strong indications that the Supreme Court will today decide on the tenure of the five state governors which was elongated by a Federal High...

London, 14 February 2011: The high court today stood by the current interpretation of the Abortion Act, deciding that women should not have the right to choose where to complete a medical abortion.

The fate of former National Security Adviser (NSA) Col. Sambo Dasuki is set to be decided upon as an Abuja High Court will on Monday February 8, 2016 rule on whether to discharge him or not from the criminal charges brought against him by the Federal Government.

He claimed he was orderd to do so by a higher officer, while the court decided that such order is impossible and counted it as an instigation for murder while sentencing Ulman for committing the murder (and the higher officer also, but not for giving a criminal order but for instigating murder).

The state's highest court will decide whether to make NYPD disciplinary records public in a case filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union with the support of news organizations including The New York Post.

An Abuja High Court in Maitama, presided over by Justice Peter Affen, on Wednesday adjourned sitting till Monday to decide if the former Minister of state...

The continuation of the newly elected governor of Kogi State, Idris Wada will on Wednesday [28, March] be decided by an Abuja Federal High Court.

A famous legal case decided in 1990 by the high court of California introduced the public to what seemed a startling notion at the time: Biological material not only can be patented but, like computer chips or other commodities, can be worth tremendous sums.

The consequences of such litigation have also grown due to the high stakes involved, often financial, but as the two right - to - die cases decided last year by the Supreme Court [Washington v. Glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997); Vacco v. Quill, 117 S. Ct. 2293 (1997)-RSB- demonstrate, life and death as well.

But the High Court ruled that NHS England does have the legal power to commission PrEP, a decision that has now been supported by three Court of Appeal judges, who decided to rule in favour of the National Aids Trust.

Given the recent decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to limit the extent of sports wagering in Delaware and the higher gaming tax rates that were recently legislated, we decided not to proceed with this project.

According to The Oregonian newspaper, in deciding that the owner's constitutional rights had not been violated by the dog's blood draw, «The high court noted that dogs are not «mere» property and don't require a warrant to search internally.

There may be more, and the issue is getting more important by the day, because of the manner in which the High Court chose to decide the question.

The High Court previously decided in May 2015 that the BBC was not in breach of its employer's duty of good faith by imposing a cap on pensionable salary.

Schrems then referred the case to the Irish High Court which decided to request a preliminary ruling on the question of whether national DPAs are absolutely bound by Commission's Decisions.

In reaching this decision, the High Court undertook a review of past Singapore case law and legal commentary on the nature and purpose of Article 34 (2)(a)(iii), ultimately deciding that «as a matter of policy, to hold that Art 34 (2)(a)(iii) does not apply, where no other limb under Art 34 (2) would be engaged, would allow an arbitral tribunal to immunize its awards against judicial scrutiny by delivering its conclusions on both jurisdiction and merits in a single award», which would have been an «unsatisfactory result».

Instead of analyzing whether California has jurisdiction over the product liability situation, in general, the high court decides that the determination regarding whether California has jurisdiction over a suit against a particular defendant must be made on a plaintiff by plaintiff basis when «specific jurisdiction» rather than «general jurisdiction» is involved.

The lengthy Schrems II case decided by the Irish High Court in October 2017 left open which questions would be referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union.

The issue of practical importance decided by David Richards J was that the High Court did have power — under CCA 1974, s 40 (2)-- to transfer proceedings to a county court although that they would otherwise fall outside the county court's jurisdiction and could not originally have been brought tCourt did have power — under CCA 1974, s 40 (2)-- to transfer proceedings to a county court although that they would otherwise fall outside the county court's jurisdiction and could not originally have been brought tcourt although that they would otherwise fall outside the county court's jurisdiction and could not originally have been brought tcourt's jurisdiction and could not originally have been brought there.

From the Latin, «to stand by things decided», the concept of a legal system in which lower courts are bound by the determination of higher courts concerning questions of law leaves little room for the lower courts of a single jurisdiction to influence appreciation of the law across the country.

The not for profit publisher was established in 1865 and they have 29 law reporters that cover cases decided by the following courts and tribunals: the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom; the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council; the Court of Justice of the European Union; the Court of Appeal (Civil and Criminal Divisions); the High Court; the Court of Protection; the Employment Appeal Tribunal; the Upper Tribunal; the Court Martial Appeal Court; and the English ecclesiastical courts.

Baxi Group Limited, decided by Lindsay J in the High Court on 21 December 2006, is the latest in a series of cases concerning the question when a composite transaction will constitute a «single supply» for VAT purposes.

The Court of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringeCourt of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringecourt in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringement.

The defendant, citing a recent case decided by the state's supreme court, disagreed and appealed to a higher court.

On appeal to the Indiana high court, it was found that the decision of whether an employee is acting within the scope of their employment is a question that must be decided by the jury if there are any disputed facts that could be decided one way or the other.

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 them.

If there is a challenge to the High Court against a refusal of disclosure by a lower court or tribunal, the High Court would decide for itself the question whether the open justice principle required discloCourt against a refusal of disclosure by a lower court or tribunal, the High Court would decide for itself the question whether the open justice principle required disclocourt or tribunal, the High Court would decide for itself the question whether the open justice principle required discloCourt would decide for itself the question whether the open justice principle required disclosure.

... Yet under the Supreme Court's approach in Bedford, by the time a case comes up for appeal, and eventually reaches the highest — and most visible — court, it may well already be effectively decCourt's approach in Bedford, by the time a case comes up for appeal, and eventually reaches the highest — and most visible — court, it may well already be effectively deccourt, it may well already be effectively decided.

In January 2015, the High Court decided that Sotheby's, representing by Freshfields, had won its battle against Lancelot William Thwaytes, the former owner of an alleged «Caravaggio» painting, «The Cardsharps».

The matter was then taken to the High Court which decided that the methods by which the tribunal had reached its decisions were flawed.

This increase was partly driven by the case of Gudanavicience and others in which the Court of Appeal decided that the government had set the threshold too high to qualify for ECF in many immigration cases.

Jourova said that an extant challenge against so - called standard contractual clauses (SCCs)-- which are used by the likes of Facebook (and many other companies) to transfer personal data between their EU and US businesses, and which earlier this month the Irish High said it would refer to Europe's top court for a preliminary ruling — is relevant to Privacy Shield because it could also have implications for the latter's future viability (i.e. if the ECJ decides SCCs do not in fact offer adequate protection for citizens» data).

When the paying parent has a very high level of income (more than # 156,000 a year)-- the court can decide whether one parent should pay «top - up» child maintenance to the other, over and above the level worked out by the CMS.

This year the High Court will decide fundamental issues about the nature of native title and the extent to which it is protected by the common law.

Despite the clear finding of the High Court in Yarmirr, [118] Yorta Yorta, [119] and Miriuwung Gajerrong [120] that the NTA, rather than the common law, is the primary basis for deciding the scope of recognition of native title, the development of the concept of connection, and the standard of proof to be met by claimants, are not to be found in the NTA.

In Walker v NSW (19), the High Court had to consider whether customary Aboriginal criminal law is something which has been recognized by the common law and which continues to this day, in the same way that Mabo decided that customary law relating to land tenure continues to exist.