Sentences with phrase «determination by the federal court»

Under the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), RNTBCs are the legal entity that hold or manage native title on behalf of native title holders after a determination by the Federal Court that native title exists.

These are the legal entities that hold or manage native title on behalf of native title holders after a determination by the Federal Court that native title exists.

Not exact matches

This was the first ruling by a federal court to confirm the CFTC's determination in 2015 that cryptos are commodities under the Commodity Exchange Act, that it can regulate them, and that it can pursue those it alleges to have engaged in fraud and manipulation schemes on crypto exchanges.

The Eastern Guruma native tital determination, resolved by mutual consent of local indigenous people and mining interests among others, was ratified today at a Federal Court hearing near Tom Price.

Judge Weinstein's ruling is important, as it is the first federal court decision to address — and agree with — the CFTC's determination that virtual currencies are commodities as defined by the CEA.

In an appeal he filed through his team of lawyers headed by J.B Daudu, SAN, Saraki prayed for «An order staying further proceedings in Charge No: CCT / ABJ / 01 / 2015 between Federal Republic of Nigeria vs Dr. Olubukola Abubakar Saraki fixed for hearing on November 5 and 6, 2015 pending the determination of the appeal pending before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeal dated October 30, 2015.»

Recall that the federal high court, Abuja asked INEC and Melaye to maintain «status quo» pending the determination of a suit filed by Melaye to challenge the process.

A Federal Capital Territory, High Court sitting in Gudu, Abuja has ordered the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission, EFCC, to remand into prison custody pending the determination of a bail application by the Ex - FCT minister Bala Mohammed who has been arraigned over a 6 - count charge bordering on abuse of office, false declaration of assets and fraud to the tune of N864million.

However, on 10th July, the Commission received an order given by the Federal High Court, Abuja and dated 6th July, 2017, directing the «parties to maintain the status quo till the determination of the Plaintiff's motion on notice, in respect of the suit filed by the concerned senator, seeking orders of injunction against the Commission to stop it from acting on the petition by the Kogi West Senatorial District Registered Voters.

But on the same 10th July, the Commission received an order given by the Federal High Court, Abuja and dated 6th July, directing the «parties to maintain the status quo till the determination of the plaintiff's motion on notice» in respect of the suit filed by the concerned senator, seeking orders of injunction against the Commission to stop it from acting on the petition by the registered voters of Kogi West Senatorial District.

INEC had suspended the recall process against Melaye after it was served with an order granted by Justice John Tsoho of the Federal High Court, Abuja which directed the commission to maintain the status quo pending the determination of the suit that Melaye filed to challenge his recall process.

In the Originating Summons marked FHC / ABJ / CS / 232/2018, the plaintiff 8 issues for determination by the court, including: Having regards to the combined provisions of sections 79,116,118,132,153,160 (1) and 178 of the 1999 constitution as amended, the constitution read together with paragraph 15 (a) of the third schedule to the same constitution, whether the 3rd defendant (Independent National Electoral Commission) is not the only institution or body constitutionally vested with the powers and vires to organized, undertake and supervised elections to the offices of the president, the vice president of the federal republic of Nigeria, the Governor and deputy governor of a state, the membership of the Senate, the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly of each state of the federation, including fixing the sequence and dates of the elections to the said offices?

The importance of the open court principle was explicitly addressed by both the OPC and the Federal Court, and weighted in making their determinatcourt principle was explicitly addressed by both the OPC and the Federal Court, and weighted in making their determinatCourt, and weighted in making their determinations.

The Bardehle lawyers analyzed all German patent validity determinations in 2010 - 2013: 392 rulings by the Federal Patent Court and 173 appellate rulings by the Federal Court of Justice.

In B&B Hardware v. Hargis Industries, the Supreme Court held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation involving the identical iCourt held that, under some circumstances, determinations by the USPTO Trademark Trial and Appeal Board could have preclusive effect in subsequent federal court litigation involving the identical icourt litigation involving the identical issue.

These include: United States v. Resendiz - Ponce, which presents the question whether the omission of an element from a federal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture ofederal indictment can constitute harmless error (9th Circuit says no); Global Crossing Telecommunications, Inc. v. Metrophones Telecommunications, Inc., on whether a provider of pay phone services can sue a long distance carrier for alleged violations of the Federal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture oFederal Communications Commission's regulations concerning compensation for coinless pay phone calls (9th Circuit says yes); Cunningham v. California, a sentencing case involving whether whether California's Determinate Sentencing Law violates the 6th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution by permitting California state court judges at sentencing to impose enhanced sentenced based on their determination of facts neither found by the jury nor admitted by the defendant; and Carey v. Musladin, reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to overturn a murder conviction of a defendant who claimed he was denied a fair trial because the victim's relatives appeared in court wearing buttons with the deceased's picture on them.

Ultimately the court found that the wife was entitled to both compensatory and non-compensatory spousal support but at an amount that was less than what was recommended by the Federal Spousal Support Guidelines (consideration of factors leading to the determination of amount of support is found at paragraph 107).

Federal Law No. 10 of 1973 established the Federal Supreme Court and Articles 58 and 59 provided for issues of constitutionality and interpretation of treaties to be referred to it by other courts for decision, with a reasoned decision of that court, where (as interpreted) there is a serious issue of such a nature to be determined and the Court has made a reasoned determination in respect oCourt and Articles 58 and 59 provided for issues of constitutionality and interpretation of treaties to be referred to it by other courts for decision, with a reasoned decision of that court, where (as interpreted) there is a serious issue of such a nature to be determined and the Court has made a reasoned determination in respect ocourt, where (as interpreted) there is a serious issue of such a nature to be determined and the Court has made a reasoned determination in respect oCourt has made a reasoned determination in respect of it.

Administrative law — Judicial review — Municipal law — Taxation — Real property tax — Payments made by Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Crown in lieu of real property tax — Assessed value of Halifax Citadel — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister is unconstrained by the assessed value of the property determined by the assessment authority in determining the property value of a federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. federal property for purposes of the PILT Act — Whether the Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Federal Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Minister acted reasonably in determining the property value of the Halifax Citadel lands (adopting the determination of the Dispute Advisory Panel appointed under the Act), and in particular in valuing the portion of the lands upon which are located improvements which are exempt from payments in lieu of taxes, representing 47 of 49 acres of the site, at $ 10 — Whether the Court should consider the present case as it raises similar issues as Montréal (City) v. Montréal Port Authority 2010 SCC 14, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 427, but from the perspective of assessed value — Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. M - 13.

Some encouragement can be derived from provisions such as s 42 of the English Arbitration Act 1996, which explicitly allows courts to mandate compliance with tribunals» orders (albeit only as long as there is no agreement by the parties to the contrary and the seat of the arbitration is in England or Wales), and recent US case law under the Federal Arbitration Act in support of enforcement of tribunals» determinations relating to disclosure.

The NTA requires native title to be held or managed by a body corporate once a determination of native title is made by the Federal Court.

In summary, between 1 July 2007 and 30 June 2008, ten determinations of native title were made [4] and eight claims were struck out by the Federal Court.

Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009, twelve determinations of native title were made by the Federal Court.

There has been money given to claimants through agreements made under the Native Title Act, but no determinations of compensation have been made by the Federal Court.

During the 2008 - 09 reporting period, 12 determinations of native title were made by the Federal Court, bringing the total number of determinations since the Native Title Act began to 121.

These problems are further compounded by the fact that the amendments to the NTA require that native title claimants commence Federal Court proceedings, not only to obtain a determination on an application for native title, but also in order to secure procedural protections in relation to future acts.

When the primary judge was hearing evidence in this matter the Native Title Act provided that, in conducting proceedings under the Act, the Federal Court, first, was «not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence» and, secondly, «must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of determination that is fair, just, economical, informal and prompt».

In the course of a native title determination application before the Federal Court, the Lardil, Kaiadilt, Yangkaal and Gangalidda Peoples sought a declaration that a buoy mooring authority issued by the State to Pasminco Century Mine Limited was invalid.

If there is no agreement and your application will be for determination by the Court, then one party can start court proceedings by filing an Initiating Application to ask the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Family Court of Australia to make orCourt, then one party can start court proceedings by filing an Initiating Application to ask the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Family Court of Australia to make orcourt proceedings by filing an Initiating Application to ask the Federal Circuit Court of Australia or the Family Court of Australia to make orCourt of Australia or the Family Court of Australia to make orCourt of Australia to make orders.

the determination of «separate questions» of fact or law by the Federal Court under Order 29 of the Federal Court Rules, and

When the primary judge was hearing evidence in this matter the Native Title Act provided that, in conducting proceedings under the Act, the Federal Court, first [20], was «not bound by technicalities, legal forms or rules of evidence» and, secondly [21], «must pursue the objective of providing a mechanism of determination that is fair, just, economical, informal and prompt».

Reviews by the NNTT threaten to create even greater confusion by enlarging the role of the NNTT to include quasi-judicial investigations into the factual and legal issues at the heart of a native title claim, the determination of which is, appropriately, the sole domain of the Federal Court.

The Federal Court previously had the power to join a party to the proceedings whose interest may be affected by a determination (whether or not it is an interest in relation to land or waters).

Claims for the determination of native title heard by Federal Court in calendar year 2003 (#)(no.

so long as what is expected by the Act regarding a consent determination is unclear, parties will feel compelled to provide, and to demand, more rather than less, for fear of falling short of the Federal Court's expectations.

At the time the Federal Court makes a determination of native title, it must make a determination whether the native title is to be held in trust, and if so by whom.

Unopposed determination means a decision by the Federal Court or the High Court of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist as a result of a native title application that is not contested by another party.

For the purposes of a native title claim process, a native title holder is one who has been determined by the Federal Court to have native title rights and interests (after determination).

Determination by consent means an approved determination of native title by the Federal Court or the High Courts of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist in relation to a particular area of land and / or waters, which is made after the parties have reached agreement in relation to Determination by consent means an approved determination of native title by the Federal Court or the High Courts of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist in relation to a particular area of land and / or waters, which is made after the parties have reached agreement in relation to determination of native title by the Federal Court or the High Courts of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist in relation to a particular area of land and / or waters, which is made after the parties have reached agreement in relation to those issues.

Unopposed determination means a decision by the Federal Court or High Court of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist as a result of a native title application that is not contested by another party.

Their native title was determined in August 2006 by the Federal Court who recognised that «the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples had maintained their long - standing connection with the Timber Creek district in spite of early violent contact with European settlers...» [56] The Full Federal Court later varied the native title determination in the Traditional Owners» favour, holding that they hold their native title rights and interests exclusively.

Determination by litigation means a decision by the Federal Court or the High Court of Australia or a recognised body that native title does or does not exist in relation to a particular area or land or waters, which is made following a trial process.