Sentences with phrase «lawful order of the court»

the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law;

Contempt of court is when a judge finds that you disobeyed a lawful order of a court, showed disrespect for the judge, or disrupted court proceedings through bad behavior.

Not exact matches

Mrs. Jonathan added, «On May 3, 2017, officials of the FIRS, in a convoy of about 20 trucks and over 70 personnel, raided our client's NGO — Aridolf Jo Resort Wellness and Spa Limited — situated at Kpansia Expressway, Bayelsa State, and orchestrated a massive destruction of personal properties belonging to our client without any lawful court order or search warrant and caused mayhem there under the guise of trying to collect unpaid taxes without following any due process provided by law to do so.»

He said that even if the DSS had any cause to conduct any further investigation, the lawful thing was to have allowed Dasuki to go abroad for treatment of his ailment as ordered by his court rather than looking for excuses to justify disobedience to the order.

He claimed that 5 operatives of the EFCC had in December last year stormed his Abuja residence without lawful court order and search warrant invaded his house and made away with his properties on the ground that they were investigating a money laundering matter.

Nor shall anything herein be construed to deprive courts of their power, by civil contempt proceedings, without a jury, to secure compliance with or to prevent obstruction of, as distinguished from punishment for violations of, any lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command of the court in accordance with the prevailing usages of law and equity, including the power of detention.

[37] Finally, with respect to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the direction of this Court, I also find the plaintiff has failed to present a lawful excuse for her repeated failure, either by refusal or through neglect, to comply with court orders, the most recent being my Order after the trial management conference on August 11, Court, I also find the plaintiff has failed to present a lawful excuse for her repeated failure, either by refusal or through neglect, to comply with court orders, the most recent being my Order after the trial management conference on August 11, court orders, the most recent being my Order after the trial management conference on August 11, 2011.

Since the Chambers Judge's order «would seem to prevent the Province from pursuing all enforcement remedies against [the Respondent], regardless of whether they relate to a specific court proceeding», the Court of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the Ccourt proceeding», the Court of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the CCourt of Appeal agreed the order inappropriately restrained the lawful conduct of a government official and was, therefore, in the nature of an injunction against the Crown.

For example, in Khrapunov v JSC BTA Bank the English Court of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy — notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise laCourt of Appeal confirmed that an individual in Switzerland who participated in breaches of a worldwide freezing order was susceptible to a claim for unlawful means conspiracy — notwithstanding that he was outside the jurisdiction of the English court (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lacourt (and therefore not bound by the freezing order or susceptible to an order finding him in contempt) and that the actions he took (moving monies on instructions from their owner) were otherwise lawful.

But criminal contempts are offenses upon the court such as wilful disobedience of a lawful writ, process, order, rule, or command of court, and a fine or imprisonment is imposed upon the contemnor for the purpose of punishment.

Article 14 seeks to ensure that an order made in one country remains valid notwithstanding that the jurisdiction of that court has been lost, for instance following a lawful move.

However, the MCA has created a statutory basis for lawfully restraining an incapable adult and, where the restraining measures employed amounted to a deprivation of liberty, a judge sitting in the Court of Protection has the jurisdiction to declare such acts lawful under MCA s 15 (1)(c) or to make an order consenting to confinement which would otherwise be a deprivation of liberty under MCA s 16 (2)(a).

In the absence of clear statutory authority for police to obtain subscriber information (and other personal information) without a warrant, the term «lawful authority» has been fraught with conflicting interpretations, with some TSPs taking the position that it means a warrant or court order, and with courts struggling to determine its scope.

(a) lawful authority refers to lawful authority other than (i) a subpoena or warrant issued, or an order made, by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or (ii) rules of court relating to the production of records; and (b) the organization that discloses the personal information is not required to verify the validity of the lawful authority identified by the government institution or the part of a government institution.

Restraining orders may also include conditions for arrest upon breach of the order, and breaches are considered criminal offences under section 127 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C - 46, which creates the offence of disobeying a court order without lawful excuse where no other punishment is expressly provided by law.

Legal or Administrative Proceedings or Investigations: We may disclose Personally Identifiable Information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding or investigation, in response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal (to the extent such disclosure is expressly authorized), in certain conditions in response to a subpoena, discovery request or other lawful process or request.

The Court of Appeal determines it is appropriate to hear and consider the Province's first ground of appeal (that because the Chambers Judge's order restrains the lawful conduct of a government official, it is in the nature of an injunction and thus not available pursuant to s. 11 of the Crown Proceeding Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 89), despite the fact that the matter is moot and the present appeal was conducted without an adversarial context.

«Lawful authority» in s. 7 (3)(c. 1)(ii) of PIPEDA must be contrasted with s. 7 (3)(c), which provides that personal information may be disclosed without consent where «required to comply with a subpoena or warrant issued or an order made by a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information, or to comply with rules of court relating to the production of records».

The law further defines the existing statutory obligation of telecommunications carriers to assist law enforcement in executing electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization.

«We hold that the circuit court had the duty and authority, in the first instance, to determine the validity of the ordinance, and, until the decision of the circuit court is reversed for error by orderly review, either by the circuit court or a higher court, the orders of the circuit court based on its decision are to be respected, and disobedience of them is contempt of its lawful authority, to be punished.

Covered entities may also disclose protected health information in response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process without a court order, but only if the covered entity receives satisfactory assurances that the party seeking disclosure has made reasonable efforts to ensure that the individual has been notified of the request or that reasonable efforts have been made by the party seeking the information to secure a qualified protective order.

By restricting disclosure of protected health information to only that information specified in a court or administrative order or released pursuant to other types of lawful process only if the individual had notice and an opportunity to object or if the information was subject to a protective order, individuals who are concerned about disclosure of information concerning third parties will have the opportunity to raise that Start Printed Page 82677issue prior to the request for disclosure being presented to the covered entity.

In the NPRM we would have allowed covered entities to disclose protected health information in the course of any judicial or administrative proceeding: (1) In response to an order of a court or administrative tribunal; or (2) where an individual was a party to the proceeding and his or her medical condition or history was at issue and the disclosure was pursuant to lawful process or otherwise authorized by law.

(ii) In response to a subpoena, discovery request, or other lawful process, that is not accompanied by an order of a court or administrative tribunal, if:

In § 164.512 (e) of the final rule, we permit covered entities to disclose protected health information in a judicial or administrative proceeding if the request for such protected health information is made through or pursuant to an order from a court or administrative tribunal or in response to a subpoena or discovery request from, or other lawful process by a party to the proceeding.

This section permits the court to order restitution to an individual who has purchased property in good faith and without notice that said property was obtained by the commission of an offence (usually fraud or theft), and where the property has been returned to its lawful owner.

Instead, an application was made to the Court of Protection for an order that it would be lawful to deprive Ms B of her liberty at the care home thus giving that court the opportunity to rule on Ms B's eligibiCourt of Protection for an order that it would be lawful to deprive Ms B of her liberty at the care home thus giving that court the opportunity to rule on Ms B's eligibicourt the opportunity to rule on Ms B's eligibility.