Sentences with phrase «exercise jurisdiction over matters»

Secondly, we have noted the call on Judges of the FCT High Court to be circumspect in deciding whether it is wise and correct to exercise jurisdiction over matters outside the FCT.

Not exact matches

... «Superior Court» is to be construed historically, and that... it connotes a court having an inherent jurisdiction, in England, to administer justice according to the law, as and being a part of, or descended from, and as exercising part of the power of, the Aula Regia, established by William the First, which had universal jurisdiction in all matters of right and wrong throughout the kingdom, and over which, in its early days, the King presided in person.

In a nutshell, the Court argued that if a court or tribunal potentially rules on a matter «covered by EU law» (para. 55), and if that court or tribunal is situated outside the EU judicial system, the autonomy of EU law is under threat, even if EU law is only occasionally relevant to the disputes over which arbitral tribunals exercise jurisdiction.

In February 2010, Judge Carton ruled in a case pending in an Australian court (yes, he has discretion to exercise jurisdiction over Australian matters) in which record company EMI sought to overturn a court ruling that the Aussie band Men at Work copied a flute riff from the children's song «Kookaburra Sits in the Old Gum Tree» in their 1980s song, «Down Under.»

The matter came before Mrs Justice Hogg between 29 - 31 July 2014 and it was held that the English Court could not exercise jurisdiction over B as she was not habitually resident here from the date of her removal to Pakistan.

However, the third paragraph of recital 12 complicates matters as it provides that where a member state court exercising jurisdiction under the Brussels I (recast) or national law has determined that an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed, the court's judgment on the substance of the matter can be recognised or enforced in accordance with Brussels I (recast)(although this is expressed as without prejudice to the competence of member state courts to decide on recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in accorded with the New York Convention which «takes precedence over» Brussels I (recast)-RRB-.

2012), addresses the important international practice question of whether activity by a non-U.S. sovereign satisfies the «commercial activity» exclusion to the application of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, thus permitting the federal courts to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a matter.

Clearly, a key component of the developments outside the U.S. is the question whether or not the U.S. courts will or will not exercise subject matter jurisdiction over these claims involving foreign investors.

107 DOS 98 Matter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restiMatter of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restimatter jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restimatter jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by proper service of a notice of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof of proper notice of hearing; DOS has subject matter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restimatter jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal exercise of right of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof of payment of restitution