Sentences with phrase «lordship held»

His lordship held that that narrow analysis of the transaction would be inconsistent with the reasoning by which the transfer came within s 660A in the first place.

His lordship held that the secretary of state could discharge his duty to inform the requested person under s 100 by means of a letter sent to the person's solicitor and that such a letter could be sent by any of the normal methods of communication, including fax.

His lordship held that the two situations were not truly parallel.

His Lordship held that the «fees and expenses» referred to in s 58 (2)(a) were the normal fees and expenses which would be chargeable in the absence of any CFA.

His Lordship held that that was indeed a valid distinction and undermined, from the respondents» point of view, the utility of Habib Bank as an authority in this case.

His lordship held that a power to require disclosure of privileged material could only be characterised as doing no more than regulating practice and procedure, as the prosecution argued, if it formed part of a code having that purpose.

His Lordship held that pre-CPR decisions were of lesser value.

His lordship held that the judge had wrongly rejected the parents» submissions founded on of MCA 1973, s 12 (c).

His lordship held that there was nothing in the wording of cl 4 (c) that indicated that it was to be confined to expenses arising by way of deviation resulting from a change of nominated port: if the first limb of cl 4 (c) dealing with expenses were so restricted, consistency would require that the second limb regarding time be similarly restricted but nothing in either limb supported that interpretation.

His lordship held further that the views expressed by the various review panels were such that no reasonable authority could reach in terms of its decision that the claimant's case was not cost effective because:

His lordship held that such a connection would not satisfy the requirements of s 57.

His Lordship held that it would be wrong to focus simply upon a comparison between what Mrs Agbaje was awarded in Nigeria and what she would have been awarded had she been able to proceed with her ancillary relief claims in England: The focus should rather be on whether, objectively speaking, substantial justice or injustice was done overseas (my emphasis).

His lordship held that LGFA 1988 did not discriminate on grounds of religion.

After considering, inter alia, R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Seymour - Smith (No 2)[2000] 1 All ER 857, his lordship held that the law was accurately spelt out in both leading text books, Lester, Pannick and Herberg, Human Rights Law and Practice (3rd Edition 2009) and Clayton and Tomlinson, The Law of Human Rights (2nd Edition 2009).

His lordship held that none of those submissions had any force.

In agreement with all of their lordships, his lordship held that not every investigation was required, in order to comply with Art 2, to amount to a D type inquiry.

Referring to the recent decision of Parker J in the Holmcroft Properties case (The Queen on the application of Holmcroft Properties Limited v KPMG LLP, (24th April 2015, unreported) his lordship held: «The fact that there may be public law remedies with which to challenge the way the FCA review has been implemented is not necessarily a bar to a private law duty of care being owed.»

In the alternative, the buyers submitted that the contract was on terms providing for delivery CFR Limassol and that delivery should be regarded as occurring, at the earliest, when the shipping documents were forwarded to and / or received by the buyers.His lordship held that the contract was, in fact, to all intents and purposes an FOB contract.

His lordship held that the consultants in this case had been doing work which the solicitors had themselves undertaken to their client to do.

His lordship held that there was no legitimate expectation before nationalisation that once LOLR had been provided, it would remain in place with the consequence that it should be taken into account for the purpose of valuing the shares.

His lordship held that if there had been any failure on the part of the regulatory authorities, it was not in any duty owed to the shareholders of Northern Rock.

His lordship held, however, that the public policy considerations relating to adoption, and the authorities on the point — which were binding on the Court of Appeal — simply made it impossible for the court to set aside the adoption orders even if, as the parents argued, they had suffered a serious injustice.

Their lordships held that the retention of fingerprints and DNA information of persons who had not been convicted did not constitute a breach of Arts 8 and 14 of the Convention.

Accordingly, their Lordships held that a provision in the CSAT statute which excluded the right to appeal on a point of law pursuant to AA 1996, s 69 was valid.

Their Lordships held that the evidence was not admissible because the will post-dated the transfer of the shares and it is «well established that evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement can not take the form of denials of a transferee's beneficial ownership made by the transferor after the event».

Not exact matches

Because that would mean allowing every part of us to be placed under His Lordship and held accountable to His Word.

But we hold that only in relation to a community that acknowledges its Lordship to Christ and lives together in fellowship can we speak of the Church, even about the invisible Church.

We respectfully urge your Lordship to hold that the citizens of Nigeria have been deprived of their natural wealth and the indicted principal members be prosecuted by the Minister of Justice and Attorney - General of the Federation.»

On the first issue, their lordships unanimously held that such claims are not subject to the non-extendable six - year limitation period (running from the date the cause of action accrued) under the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), s 2.

His lordship applied those principles to the instant case and held that the transfer should be made to the TCC.

His lordship rejected that argument and held that the rule was of general application.

His lordship further held that exemplary damages should be disallowed in the context of a claim founded on privacy and / or breach of confidence.

His lordship referred to Al - Adsani v United Kingdom (2001) 34 EHRR 273 and held that compliance with obligations owed in international law was of itself pursuit of a legitimate aim.

His lordship further held that the power conferred by para 14 (2)(f) of Sch 17 to FSM 2000 included power to delegate the exercise of the power of summary dismissal to designated members of the ombudsman.

His lordship turned to whether the ombudsman was required to hold an oral and / or public hearing.

Recognising that this case was «fairly close to the borderline», as the employee's actions were not particularly helpful in themselves, their lordships nevertheless held that the employers were in breach of their duty of care.

Their lordships, by a majority, said the claimant's undoing was really due to his failure to proceed within the limitation period and held that a claim brought in respect of an act purporting to be done under the powers of MeHA 1983 was a complete nullity if the claimant had failed to obtain the leave of the High Court under MeHA 1983, s 139 (2) before issuing proceedings.

His lordship had already held that reason (ii) involved a clear error of law.

His lordship considered the evidence and held that none of the payments, which the directors purported to agree should be paid at the club's expense to E, were duly authorised by the club, either at the time they were made, or subsequently, save in so far as the shareholders might have ratified them by approving the accounts.

A chink appears in their lordships otherwise robust rejection of the damages claim because they also held the presumption to be rebuttable by express contrary agreement.

His lordship turned to the facts of the case and held that there was no scope for s 13 (9) to preclude the tenants from serving what was otherwise a valid s 13 notice in April 2006 and that notice, therefore, was a valid notice under s 13.

His lordship turned to the facts and held that the claim would be remitted to the AIT for determination of the Art 8 claim.

His Lordship turned to the facts and held that there was evidence on which the jury, properly directed, could have concluded that the degree of force used to restrain the deceased had caused his death.

His lordship considered the authorities further and held that CPR 71 was not conceived with officers abroad in mind, and, although it contained no express exclusion in respect of them, there were lacking critical considerations which enabled the Court of Appeal in Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd (in liquidation), Re [1993] 2 All ER 980 to hold that the presumption of territoriality was displaced and that the relevant statutory provision there, on its true construction and having regard to the legislative grasp or intendment, embraced a foreign officer.

His Lordship considered the facts and held that, save for one property, the claimant had proved that the first respondent was a dishonest man who had employed dishonesty to obtain or seek to obtain property and accordingly was entitled to a recovery order.

His lordship would have held that even if the rule of advocates» immunity had subsisted in 1995 it would not have prevented the accrual of a cause of action and would not have prevented the running of time for the purposes of limitation.

His lordship went on to consider the merits and held that the claimant had suffered unlawful discrimination.

Lord Brown held (arguably going further than Lord Lane CJ): «That the criminal standard of proof is the correct standard to be applied in all disciplinary proceedings concerning the legal profession, their Lordships entertain no doubt.»

As to the knowledge requirement, his lordship went on to hold that a keeper's knowledge that a horse had the characteristic of normally behaving in a certain way in particular circumstances could be established by showing that the keeper knew that horses as a species normally behaved in that way in those circumstances.

His Lordship considered Öneryildiz v Turkey, and held that the case did not assist the claimant.