A strange and uncomfortable cohabitation exists between family (private), and administrative (public),
lawyers over interpretations of the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991) and in representation of parents and the secretary of state for work and pensions in child support proceedings.
Not exact matches
«We have spoken to our
lawyers and we will seek an
interpretation in court
over the legality of the meeting which was held, if that is upheld, then the decision taken will be declared null and void... we believe in our flagbearer and he also believes in the rule of law, he will not fight but go to court and that is just what we will also be doing,» he said.
The suggestion that the desire to avoid civil law majorities expressed the ad hoc rules should be carried
over into an
interpretation that it is only current membership at the time of appointment (or in the case of
lawyers, even uninterrupted ten years membership) that ensures that the representatives will be seen as legitimate is laughable.
This is what can happen when an individual (Commissioner of Competition) is given unilateral discretion
over one's
interpretation of what some
lawyers working within the field of competiton law suggest is a murky field of meanings / confusion at best.