Sentences with phrase «judge held»

In this case, however, the contempt motion was dismissed because the motion judge held that the Greenbergs had not met the three - part test.

The judge held that

In this context, and contrary to the appellant's submission, the motion judge held that the Superintendent was not required to establish that the appellant was ordinarily resident in Brazil or some other specific foreign jurisdiction.

The judge held that the parent company couldn't be held responsible because it doesn't manufacture or market the product, and Echeverria failed to present evidence to show that J&J was responsible for its subsidiary.

The motion judge held that the repetition of these accusations, which had already been rejected in court, justified awarding costs against Mr. Best on a full indemnity scale.

The judge held that it was not, as did the Court of Appeal.

In In Re Cover Europe Ltd [2002] BCLC 61, [2002] All ER (D) 359 (Feb) the deputy judge held that, in relation to the subject matter of the proceedings, the liquidator and the company were to be regarded as «the same party» for the purposes of Art 21 of the Convention.

The judge held that the will was a forgery.

As a result, the trial judge held that the defendants» had made fraudulent misrepresentations to the purchasers prior to the contract being signed.

The trial judge held that the change had been properly brought to the seller's attention; that it knew (through the knowledge of its solicitors) of the change, that the buyer had no reason to think that the seller did not know of the change and that the conditions for rectification had not been met.

The trial judge held McGoey breached his fiduciary duty, acted in his own self - interest, and failed to act honestly and in good faith with the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

Since the book went to print we have had the decision in Henry v MGN Ltd [2012] EWHC 90218 (Costs) where the senior costs judge held a party to their approved budgeted costs even though they had spent significantly more and all of their costs were considered proper.

The judge held that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success in his claim, and indeed the better side of the argument; that, although there was a good arguable case for English law and jurisdiction, the claimant did not have the better argument — in respect of jurisdiction, the defendant had much the better side of the argument; and that since it was common ground that if the contracts had been made, they had been made in England, the English court had a basis for exercising its discretion to take jurisdiction under CPR 6.20 (5)(a)(now 6BPD.3 — 3.1 (6)(a).

With regard to any claim under the statutory right to maternity leave, the judge held that the department was in the right.

The trial judge held that «overall, the court is required to consider what is «fair and reasonable», with a view to balancing compensation to the successful party with the goal of fostering access to justice.»

The judge held that the mother's expert had exceeded his brief and there was no justification for further testing.

The judge held, that members of the scheme who had the right to retire at age 60 in respect of any part of their service and who were aged between 60 and 64 at the date that the scheme commenced winding up fell within the Pensions Act 1995 (PA 1995), s 73 (3)(b) even in respect of pension or other benefits accrued by service to which an NRD of 65 applied.

With respect to the strip search and the car seizure, the trial judge held that, although the Province and the City did not act in bad faith and were not liable in tort for either incident, the Province's strip search and the City's vehicle seizure violated W's right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under s. 8 of the Charter.

The judge held that it should be on a compound basis, as did the Court of Appeal.

Similarly, in Eagle Professional Resources Inc. v. MacMullin, a motions judge held (and the Ontario Court of Appeal agreed) that three employees did not breach their employment agreements when they solicited their former employer's customers, employees, and contractors.

The district judge held that ThA 1968s 2 (4)(a) prevented her from issuing the summonses sought in the instant case.

The trial judge held that the fall at home would not have taken place but for the accident at work such that causation between the two events had been satisfactorily established.

Considering the $ 110,000 already paid, the judge held that the Respondent owed the Appellant $ 16,371.51.

On that basis, the judge held that the issue of free informed consent became irrelevant and gave judgment for Bradbury.

The judge held, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that a presumption of undue influence arose because Goodchild reposed trust and confidence in Bradbury and the transaction — which considerably depleted Goodchild's estate — was not explicable by the parties» relationship.

Accordingly, the judge held there was sufficient evidence to rectify the will.

The trial judge held that the proceedings should be struck out as an abuse of process: «This is not only an example of forum shopping but of issue switching which the court should not be prepared to tolerate.»

The judge held that the claim was time - barred, because time had begun to run for the purposes of s 9 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980) from the date of revocation of the certificate by the board in May 1999, not when the costs were taxed — as argued for by the claimant — in December 2001.

I'll repeat: the trial judge held that a but - for cause was not a legal but - for cause because it was a a de minimis cause.

«The judge held that as a matter of commercial common sense it was necessary to give effect to this declaration to make the transaction work.

The judge held that the latter option was the case.

Nonetheless the judge held that the absence of an express prohibition on the use of the navigation beacon was not to be taken as the landowner having given implied permission for the schoolboy to use the beacon.

No damages were awarded for this breach, however, because the judge held that according to the House of Lords ruling in Johnson v Unisys [2001] ICR 480, [2001] All ER (D) 274 (Mar) if the loss was caused by the dismissal, any claim was the sole prerogative of the law of unfair dismissal and not the common law.

A number of recent cases involving testamentary capacity have raised questions on the golden rule... In Sharp v Adam [2006] EWCA Civ 449 the rule was observed, but the trial judge held, largely on the basis of the evidence of experts who had not seen the deceased, that the will was invalid, and the Court of Appeal upheld his decision.

In stark contrast to the large sum awarded for the uncle's lost reputation, the judge held that if the nieces» claims had been accepted, he would have awarded each of them $ 35,000 in general damages.

The summary conviction appeal judge held that the standard for obtaining a search warrant and a production order was the same — reasonable grounds to believe that the Code requirements were met.

Recently, a plaintiff's purported class action against Diet Dr. Pepper went flat when a California federal judge held that the term «Diet» alone on a soft drink label does not constitute a claim that the soft drink will assist in weight loss.

E.D. Va.), the judge held that the contract to convey real estate did not create a constructive trust.

The Trial Judge held that the County breached its duty of care in a number of ways, each of which contributed to the plaintiff's accident.

In the Virginia Circuit Court case of Penza v. Penza, Case No: CL07 - 92, in the Circuit Court of Rappahannock County, the divorce court judge held that the accrued rent that was kept by the husband, who was not occupying the property and did not intend to retain it, was waste of a joint asset.

The judge held that the mere fact that the real property had not been conveyed was not sufficient to create a constructive trust, reasoning that the parties agreed to transfer title at a later date for their mutual benefit.

E.D.Va., 2008), in the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division, the bankruptcy judge held that the disposable income of an above - median - income debtor can be determined using the monthly income resulting from Official Form B22C, the means testing form, minus the expenses allowed by 11 U.S.C. 707 (b)(2)(A)(iii), including payments on a luxury goods, like BMWs, and an expensive, $ 700K home, even if such payments were at the expense of the unsecured creditors, who were only receiving a 3 % dividend.

At c the judge held that despite the union's 25 - year presence in the community, labour unions were nonetheless illegal at common law.

That case, factually similar to the within action, involved actions that occurred in the courthouse hallway, about which the Judge held an impromptu criminal contempt of court hearing.

In one interview segment, attorney Carl Douglas points out that the Nevada judge held the jury until late into the evening to announce the verdict on the thirteenth anniversary of the murder acquittal and sentenced Simpson to 33 years, matching the $ 33 million in damages awarded in the civil case.

The judge held that neither of these tests were satisfied.

The motion judge held that the request for a representation order in this case could properly be characterized as a request to «correct the name of a party incorrectly named» within the meaning of r. 5.04 (2).

The Superior Court judge held that the contractor had submitted a proper claim for extras which was required to be considered by the engineer.

However, the application judge held that the renewal provision required McDonald's to do more than simply provide notice of its intention to renew.

As a result, the application judge held the doctrine of waiver did not apply and the Lease was at an end.