Sentences with phrase «jurisdiction by the high court»

Not exact matches

The following year, Monaco filed suit against the State of Mississippi in the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court refused to hear Monaco's claim on the grounds that the «Court has no jurisdiction of a suit brought by a foreign state against a state of the Union without her consent.&rCourt, but the high court refused to hear Monaco's claim on the grounds that the «Court has no jurisdiction of a suit brought by a foreign state against a state of the Union without her consent.&rcourt refused to hear Monaco's claim on the grounds that the «Court has no jurisdiction of a suit brought by a foreign state against a state of the Union without her consent.&rCourt has no jurisdiction of a suit brought by a foreign state against a state of the Union without her consent.»

Her application to have her conversion legally recognized by Malaysian courts was rejected in 2007 when the high court said it did not have jurisdiction over religious matters.

A few days later, Judge Teori Zavascki, who oversees the Car Wash Operation at the Supreme Court, took over the case involving Lula from Moro and demanded an explanation of why he had released taped phone calls involving Rousseff and other ministers (who can not be judged by lower jurisdictions without authorisation from the highest coCourt, took over the case involving Lula from Moro and demanded an explanation of why he had released taped phone calls involving Rousseff and other ministers (who can not be judged by lower jurisdictions without authorisation from the highest courtcourt).

The request reads in part: «While we believe that suspects generally are entitled to be presumed innocent until proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, SERAP opposes blanket non-disclosure of names of high - ranking public officials from whom some of the funds were recovered.»

THE battle to determine the standard - bearer of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Bayelsa State, on Thursday, shifted to the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, as Governor Timipre Sylva told the five - man panel, headed by Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa, that the PDP had invoked its jurisdiction in order to stall hearing of the substantive matter at the Federal High Court sitting in Abuja.

A copy of the order has revealed that the fresh suit was filed by Saraki the same day a similar one which he filed before Justice Ibrahim Buba of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court was struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Anin Yeboah JSC, a justice of the Supreme Court of Ghana has stated categorically that the instant application brought before the Supreme Court by Dr. Zanetor Rawlings to invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction is frivolous and unmeritorious one which did not merit the intervention of the highest court of the Court of Ghana has stated categorically that the instant application brought before the Supreme Court by Dr. Zanetor Rawlings to invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction is frivolous and unmeritorious one which did not merit the intervention of the highest court of the Court by Dr. Zanetor Rawlings to invoke the court's supervisory jurisdiction is frivolous and unmeritorious one which did not merit the intervention of the highest court of the court's supervisory jurisdiction is frivolous and unmeritorious one which did not merit the intervention of the highest court of the court of the land.

(c) And also for * submissions based on the assertion that Mr. Woyome had no contract with the Government of Ghana * and therefore had no valid claims against the Government be determined by the High Court, and not by this Court (the Supreme Court), since they do not involve, according to the relevant case law, the interpretation and enforcement of the Constitution and do not therefore fall within the ambit of the Court's original jurisdiction under Article 130 (1) of the 1992 Constitution.

A former Chief of Defence Staff, Alex Badeh, who is currently being tried by Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) has questioned the jurisdiction of the Abuja Federal High Court to entertain the criminal charges filed against him by the anti graft agency.

An Accra High court General Jurisdiction 5 has dismissed an application brought to it by Nana Obiri Boahen, Kwame Baffoe popularly called «Abronye DC» and David Asante seeking to dismiss a defamation suit brought before it by the National Organiser of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) Kofi Adams.

«That you, Isah Hamman Misau of Hamman Misau Residence, Turaki Street, Misau, Bauchi State, on or about December 15, 2014, at the Independent National Electoral Commission Headquarters, Abuja, within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court, did utter a false document to wit: a Statutory Declaration of Age deposed to at the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, on December 15, 2014, by submitting same to the Independent National Electoral Commission knowing it to be false and you thereby committed an offence contrary to Section 1 (2)(c) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act Cap M17, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and punishable under the same section of the Act.»

The Human Rights Division of the Superior court of Jurisdiction in High court of Justice Accra, preferred an out of court settlement, which was accepted by both the plaintiffs, Mr. Philip Ayamba and seven others and the Defendant, the Ministry of Justice and Attorney General's Department in respect of L.I 2146.

But Justice Gabriel Kolawole, in his judgment, delivered on July 1, 2015, held that he lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit while the June 8, 2015 judgment of the Lagos Division of the Federal High Court, nullifying the extradition application and affirmed by another judge of the same Lagos division on June 23, 2015, had not been set aside by any appellate cCourt, nullifying the extradition application and affirmed by another judge of the same Lagos division on June 23, 2015, had not been set aside by any appellate courtcourt.

«That you Stephen Oronsaye a.k.a. Mr Steve Oronsaye on or about 30th December, 2014 at Abuja within the jurisdiction of the High Court of the Federal Capital Territory whilst being the Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Financial Action Task Force and in such capacity entrusted with certain property to wit: the sum of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) committed Breach of Trust in respect of the said sum by converting it to your personal use through the investment of the said sum of N90, 000,000.00 in Access Bank Plc's Bankers Acceptance for a tenor of 90 days at 12.0 % interest rate each in violation of the extant financial regulations».

Handed down this month, the unanimous ruling by the state's highest court said Kanawha County Circuit Judge John Hey had overstepped his jurisdiction when he issued the injunction against striking teachers statewide.

These are usually cleared up fairly easily, by providing the non-Native courts the law and authority upfront, but there are many jurisdictions that have no experience in Native American law and are often surprised when the see the complexity of the practice and the high quality of the work that is being done in tribal courts.

However, in the case named above the Court of Schleswig - Holstein justifies its decision by saying that the level of violence applied by the person subject to the EAW was not strong enough to be considered as «High Treason», referring to German jurisdiction.

This judgment followed on from the well - known decision of Mr Justice Birss in Unwired Planet v Huawei where he determined that the English High Court had jurisdiction to determine portfolio FRAND on a global basis and could grant a so called FRAND injunction against a defendant if it chose not to enter into the licence on the terms determined by the Court.

In a scenario which played itself out in various European capitals the measures imposed by the Icelandic government in order to prop up its banking system potentially undermined the agreement's exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English High Court as well as its governing English law provision.

It held that there is nothing in the Constitution that confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Federal High Court to determine criminal causes and matters in respect of the civil matters for which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution under Section 251 (1).

In relation to an award by an employment tribunal or sum due under an ACAS settlement, the High Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 2009 (SI 2009/577) will allow beneficiaries to enforce by way of execution against goods in either the High Court or county court where the sum involved is less than # 5Court and County Courts Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 2009 (SI 2009/577) will allow beneficiaries to enforce by way of execution against goods in either the High Court or county court where the sum involved is less than # 5Court or county court where the sum involved is less than # 5court where the sum involved is less than # 5,000.

The rise in the High Court threshold for non-personal injury claims to # 100,000 (seeCivil way, «Civil way», NLJ, 14 March 2014, p 17) is established by the High Court and County Court Jurisdiction (Amendment) Order 2014 (SI 2014/821).

Third - party funding arrangements are already familiar in other jurisdictions, in particular in Australia (where they were endorsed by the majority in the Australian High Court decision in Campbells Cash and Carry Limited v Fostif Pty [2006] HCA41), and Germany.

The High Court agreed with the investors that § 10 (3) of the IAA did not apply to the current application, since it only permits the High Court to review a positive ruling on jurisdiction where this has been dealt with by the tribunal as a preliminary question.

David Haigh v. Gulf Finance House Capital Ltd and ors (High Court, QBD): Instructed by Stephenson Harwood in a complex private international law claim in QBD involving issues of jurisdiction, applicable law and the torts of deceit, conspiracy to injury and unlawful means conspiracy.

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.

This can be seen (slightly misunderstood by Mostyn J: he describes the jurisdiction as «hybrid») in UL v BK (para [14]-RRB- and in the injunction jurisdiction of the High Court codified in Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37.

Substantive legislation (eg the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (MCA 1973), and the Children Act 1989) creates new law; but it may also codify or confirm the common law, eg Senior Courts Act 1981, s 37 merely confirms the High Court's inherent jurisdiction generally to grant injunctions: by contrast MCA 1973, s 37 (2) creates a new jurisdiction to restrain disposal).

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.

Georgina Rowley Qualified: 2004 Made partner: 2015 Key cases: Acting for the US defendant on the high profile jurisdiction litigation brought in England by James Petter against EMC Corporation, which is currently heading for the Supreme Court.

In those highly unusual circumstances, the proper route by which the local authority sought to ensure that the course it proposed was necessary and in the child's interests, was by putting the matter before the High Court by way of an application to invoke its inherent jurisdiction.

Represented the claimant in an arbitration arising out of an LME contract for the sale of iron ore (FOB Mumbai), being the only known case in which commercial arbitrators were required by the English High Court to accept jurisdiction over defamation claims.

(2) the person otherwise lawfully practicing as an in - house counsel under the laws of a foreign jurisdiction must be authorized to practice under this rule by, in the exercise of its discretion, [the highest court of this jurisdiction].

In Shane Anthony Cooley (By His Father and Litigation Friend Peter Anthony Cooley) v Ramsey [2008] EWHC 129 (QB), the High Court was asked to consider whether it had jurisdiction to grant permission for proceedings to be served in Australia in a case where a British citizen had been left grossly handicapped as a result of a road traffic accident which had occurred in Australia; and whether, if so, it should exercise its discretion in the claimant's favour.

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.

Whilst taking a slightly different route to get there, the Court of Appeal agreed that the High Court had jurisdiction to make blocking orders under section 37 (1) of the Senior Courts Act, as interpreted in light of Article 11 of the Enforcement Directive (which provides that member states shall ensure that rights holders are in a position to apply for an injunction against intermediaries whose services are used by a third party to infringe an IP right).

Our view is that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman must not be steam - rollered by the Courts, as inevitably this could lead to higher costs for complainants and defendants or deter parties from bringing complaints altogether.

Counsel for Stans Energy Corporation before the High Court of England and Wales defending a challenge brought by the Kyrgyz Republic to the jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal seated in London and hearing claims under the Kyrgyz Foreign Investment Law.

The use of TAR have been accepted by courts in various jurisdictions - firstly with several US cases, then in early 2016 in the UK with the High Court Phrrho Investments Ltd v MWB Property LTD case [2016] EWHC 256 (Cth), and finally in December 2016 in Australia in a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria (McConnell Dowell Constructors (Aust) Pty Ltd v Santam Ltd & Ors (No 1)[2016] VSC 734), and orders in a Federal Court of Australia matter (Money Max Int v QBE Insurance, VID513 / 2015) relating to the TAR algorithms used and methodology in the training and validation.

Date — Bah JSC in this case stated that: «what is intended to be covered by Order 81 are irregularities, short of situations of want of jurisdiction or infringements of statutes other than the High Court Rules... thus, whilst Order 81 rule 1 treats non compliance with the Rules as not nullifying the non - complying proceedings, the rule DOES NOT apply to non — compliance which is so fundamental as to go to Jurisdiction, or which is in breach of a Statute other than the civil procedure rules; breach of the Constitution; or the breach of the rules of natural jusjurisdiction or infringements of statutes other than the High Court Rules... thus, whilst Order 81 rule 1 treats non compliance with the Rules as not nullifying the non - complying proceedings, the rule DOES NOT apply to non — compliance which is so fundamental as to go to Jurisdiction, or which is in breach of a Statute other than the civil procedure rules; breach of the Constitution; or the breach of the rules of natural jusJurisdiction, or which is in breach of a Statute other than the civil procedure rules; breach of the Constitution; or the breach of the rules of natural justice.»

The NPC Standing Committee decision states that the SPC will issue a detailed document on the jurisdiction of the Shanghai financial court, that the financial court will hear civil, commercial and administrative financial cases previously heard by the city's intermediate court and that appeals will be to the Shanghai Higher People's Ccourt, that the financial court will hear civil, commercial and administrative financial cases previously heard by the city's intermediate court and that appeals will be to the Shanghai Higher People's Ccourt will hear civil, commercial and administrative financial cases previously heard by the city's intermediate court and that appeals will be to the Shanghai Higher People's Ccourt and that appeals will be to the Shanghai Higher People's CourtCourt.

It is not sufficiently known or understood that the UT will have an innovative judicial review jurisdiction delegated to it; the relationship of the UT with the High Court is a subject being examined by a working group chaired by Lord Justice Stephen Richards.

The recent High Court litigation involving Roman Abramovich and the development of part of the Priobskoye oil fields, regarded by one oil analyst as the «pearl of Western Siberia», addresses important issues of jurisdiction in civil fraud cases.

The headlines were grabbed by increases in the small claims track (other than PI) to # 10,000 and in the starting limit for the High Court at # 100,000, the automatic reference to mediation of small claims, changes to the enforcement process, and the creation of one county court jurisdicCourt at # 100,000, the automatic reference to mediation of small claims, changes to the enforcement process, and the creation of one county court jurisdiccourt jurisdiction.

The petitioner has brought to our notice that the proceedings initiated by it at the High Court Kuala Lumpur challenging the Partial award have been virtually brought to a standstill owing the objections raised by the respondent on grounds of jurisdiction.

Learned senior counsel emphasized that Section 5 of the Act expressly bars intervention of the Courts except in matters expressly provided for in the Act 10 and, therefore, even if the petition filed by the respondents under Section 9 could be treated as maintainable, the High Court did not have jurisdiction over the arbitration proceedings because the same are governed by the laws of England.