Sentences with phrase «fairness of a court case»

Lawyers make a big difference in the success and fairness of a court case.

Not exact matches

We find it very bizarre that the Hon. Attorney - General, Ms Gloria Akufo, who assured the entire citizenry of her commitment to fairness and strict adherence to ethical principles at her vetting not too long ago, will claim that she exercised the said constitutional discretion on grounds merely that there was a lack of evidence to prosecute the case in question when indeed, the Siting Judge, Court Clerks, Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Clerks, Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Bailiffs, Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from Court Warrant Officers (CWOs), Journalists as well as notable public figures in whose presence the said court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from court was physically attacked and the accused persons freed, are alive and available to be interviewed and evidence taken from same.

You may have heard of the disapointment in the 2009 bank charges test case where the Supreme Court decided that charges could not be assessed for fairness.

In the Supreme Court ruling on the bank charges test case, the chief judge of the Supreme Court thought it important enough to say this ruling didn't stop people challenging fairness under «Regulation 5» of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (which the Supreme Court case did not cover).

In the Supreme Court decision in 2009, the chief judge thought it important enough to say this ruling didn't stop people challenging fairness under Regulation 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (UTCCR), which the Supreme Court case did not cover.

In the context of this case, the court recognised that the «potential impact on the livelihoods of solicitors and access to justice» meant that a «high degree of fairness was required».

In doing so the Supreme Court confirmed the case law of the lower courts to the effect that the demands of fairness will be likely to be greater when an authority proposes to deprive someone of an existing benefit than when considering a potential future benefit.

Writing for the court, Justice Brown noted that «fairness requires a judge to accommodate a self - represented party's unfamiliarity with the litigation process to enable her to present her case to the best of her ability: Davids v. Davids (1999), 1999 CanLII 9289 (ON CA), 125 O.A.C. 375 (C.A.), at para. 36.»

One company's founder even bills herself as the «Fairy Godmother of Divorce» These types of financing arrangements could provide some fairness in hotly contested divorce cases when one side maintains control of bank accounts and assets during the litigation and therefore has the ability to hire lawyers, while the other side may get locked out of accessing financial assets before the divorce papers are even filed with the court.

In this case, having regard to: (i) the origin of Ofsted's duty of fairness; (ii) the general purpose of the JAR together with its procedural arrangements; and (iii) the unique circumstances and timescale in which the JAR had been directed, the Court of Appeal found that Shoesmith's appeal against Ofsted should be dismissed.

However, Mr Justice Morgan ruled that the claim was a collective and not an individual challenge on fairness and that the court would take the case of a typical rather than an actual customer when assessing fairness.

Unfair Vancouver separation agreement cases permit the court options to set aside or vary the Vancouver separation agreement for noncompliance with rules of fairness and principles under our Family Law Act and divorce legislation.

[10] And, quite apart from avoiding the multiplicity of actions — the mischief sought to be avoided by s 8 of the Judicature Act and R 1.3 of the Alberta Rules of Court, a proposition for which there is also ample case authority — the chambers judge properly adhered to the urging of the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7 (CanLII), [2014] 1 SCR 87 to the effect that courts are obliged to resolve legal disputes in the most cost - effective and timely method available, provided the process selected ensures fairness between the parties.

The leading case handed down over twenty years ago was Knight v. Indian Head School Division No. 19 (1990), where the Supreme Court of Canada set out a three - pronged test: when a public body's decision is administrative and final in nature, is made under a statute or code, and affects the interests or rights of the accused person, then the rules of procedural fairness must be followed.

Further, under the bad character provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 there is also a strong case for the admission of the findings of care proceedings under «reprehensible conduct» in s 106 (2), although the court «must not admit» it if it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of the trial — rather than the «may not admit» it under s 78.

In the determination, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the authoritative jurisprudence on the principle of special contribution is clearly provided by the House of Lords in the cases of Miller and Charman and that it was not open to the Court of Appeal to substitute any personal concepts of fairness for those reflected in the principles already laid down by previous authorities.

Canadian courts are to take five factors into account in determining the content of procedural fairness in any given case.

At Goings Law Firm, we're aware that the unjust passing of a dear one is a matter that nobody can ever compensate for - nonetheless, when their death is the outcome of another individual's carelessness, their dear ones can always get the endless and sense of fairness they require by holding the other party liable by filing a wrongful death court case.

But even in such cases, one can expect a court to recognize that a regulatory body owes some degree of procedural fairness to each complainant.

Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has mandated that class actions may proceed only if they clearly comply with certain fairness prerequisites, some lower federal courts have allowed an end - run around these prerequisites — they certify only a particular issue (just a sliver of the case) for class treatment.

Even a tribunal that acts judicially can surely participate in some meaningful way before a reviewing court, for instance in addressing the standard of review (though see this case) or providing context for an alleged breach of procedural fairness.

In the present case, the Court held, «where a party forms the view that the divergence of interests between the insurer and its insured is such that the insured's representation by counsel appointed by the insurer might prejudice the fairness of a trial, the party is obliged to seek appropriate relief promptly from the court, certainly well before trial.&rCourt held, «where a party forms the view that the divergence of interests between the insurer and its insured is such that the insured's representation by counsel appointed by the insurer might prejudice the fairness of a trial, the party is obliged to seek appropriate relief promptly from the court, certainly well before trial.&rcourt, certainly well before trial.»

The video excerpt to the left is from the National Center for State Courts «Writing Opinions and Orders in Controversial Cases,» explains the importance of procedural fairness when writing opinions and orders in controversial cCases,» explains the importance of procedural fairness when writing opinions and orders in controversial casescases.

Whilst a Judge may initially be sympathetic if, for example, a statement of case or defence aren't in the format a lawyer would know they need to be presented in, the court is very unlikely to continue to grant leeway once an initial warning has been given, and, as another example, turning up to court to defend an application by the opponent to strike out your claim and simply arguing it wouldn't be fair to allow the application because of the overriding objective of fairness would be given short shrift.

HMRC's permanent secretary for tax, Dave Hartnett, says: «There was an important principle of fairness at stake and that is why we have fought this complex case through the courts.

«In fairness I think our courts have to live with these types of cases for a while until they fully understand their dimensions.

A very interesting illustration of the principle in my tweet, below, came in the bank overdraft case where the Supreme Court ruled, according to the law governing the Office of Fair Trading, that the OFT could not look into the fairness of bank overdraft charges.

I'm going to Federal Court (solo) for the first time (my streak of consents officially ends now) next week on an interesting procedural fairness case.

«Given the ambivalence of the U.S. Supreme Court's case law on whether the federal constitution provides a remedy for partisan gerrymandering, state constitutions, with their focus on electoral equality and fairness, have the promise and the potential to be an effective means to address excessively partisan redistricting,» Tolson wrote.