Sentences with phrase «made against the defendants»

The bank's claims in deceit, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt (totalling about US$ 175 million) were upheld, and indemnity costs orders were made against the defendants.

HELD The purpose of a criminal restraint order, as with a civil freezing order, is not to prevent third parties from enforcing civil rights against a defendant if those rights would be unaffected by any order which may be made against the defendant at the end of the proceedings.

The litigation concerns claims made against the Defendants by subscribers to a film partnership scheme known as the Evolution Films Partnerships in connection with the Defendants» actions as (i) sponsor and promoter, (ii) administrator, and / or as appropriate (iii) tax and financial adviser in relation to the Evolution Films Partnerships.

A figure in respect of estimated costs can also be frozen, ensuring any costs orders made against the defendants in the proceedings can be recovered.

Not exact matches

He deemed the case against the defendants so flimsy that he thought it unfair to make them wait.

I share the view expressed by objective and reasonable members of the public that because the government was the 1st defendant / respondent against whom the Supreme Court made declarations of unconstitutional conduct in paying the judgment debt to Alfred Agbesi Woyome, the government has been pretending for purely political reasons at each turn to take steps to enforce the judgment and orders of the court only to deliberately abort them.

«He considered announcing this week, but eventually decided against doing so — a decision validated by the fact that some defendants are starting to claim that the cases against them are driven by politics,» the source said, referring to claims made by Espada.

Although the EFCC in two separate letters to the Federal Government through the Secretary to the Government of the Federation had in 2015 and 2016 cleared Umar of any wrongdoing in the alleged N10 million bribery allegation made against him by a defendant, Rasheed Taiwo Owolabi standing trial before him on false asset declaration.

The suit by his lawyer, Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), showed Dokpesi also praying for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from further making any defamatory publications against him, and N50million as cost of the action.

The court held that the Plaintiff has made more than sufficient references to the specific allegations, the dates and times were made plus the specific radio / media platforms on which the allegations were made by Defendants against the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff, in its originating summons stated that «the allegations made against the 1st and 2nd defendants (Amaechi and Onu) by the two Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria... are grievous enough to warrant their arrest, investigation and prosecution by the 3rd and 4th defendants (DSS and EFCC).»

In the suit by his lawyer Chief Mike Ozekhome (SAN), Dokpesi is also praying for a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or their agents from further making any defamatory publications against him, and N50million as cost of the action.

Well, suffice it to say that individuals and groups associated with the defendants are sounding off through the comment process, and they are making very strong claims to the general effect that DOJ's efforts to protect consumers against ebook price - fixing are misguided, because the DOJ should instead be protecting the interests and the distribution infrastructure of the same publishers who colluded with Apple to raise ebook prices by 30 to 100 percent back in 2010.

While there is precedent for filing the suit against all of the defendants together, other similar cases have resulted in a judge ordering that there be separate trials for each defendant, making the plaintiff much less likely to sue each offender.

In March 2011, U.S. district judge Deborah Batts ruled against Prince and ordered the defendants to destroy remaining copies of the catalogue and unsold paintings that make use of Cariou's photographs.

In March 2011, U.S. District judge Deborah Batts ruled against Prince and ordered the defendants to destroy remaining copies of the catalogue and unsold paintings that make use of Cariou's photographs.

In its original Complaint, the Government made four claims against Defendants under three federal statutes.

In order for a civil claim to succeed, with payments made, fault in full or part must be established against the defendant.

We also act in cases where innocent third parties are affected by orders made in criminal cases against defendants.

(b) If a defendant gives such a notice, the court will not make an order for costs against him unless it considers that there was no reasonable ground for opposing the will.»

If the facts of the case simply do not support the legal charges against the defendant, an experienced lawyer can bring this to the prosecutor's attention in an effective way, and make the appropriate application for dismissal of the charges.

On March 4, 2014, the Court made the order requested, and the ParkLane Defendants» Third Party Claim against the Distributors will only proceed after the common issues trial has been completed.

More specifically, the Court found that the defendants failed to properly investigate the allegations made against the plaintiff, and published them knowing them to be false.

And this was «precisely the case made» against the defendants in question.

A restraint order was made against their client's assets and the question arose as to whether or not the defendant was entitled to the # 5,000 on account of the fact that at the time the restraint order was made their fees were already in excess of that amount.

Accordingly, a claimant who is refused a PCO may renew the application at an oral hearing without constraint, but a defendant who has a PCO made against him has to establish «compelling reasons» to have it set aside.

She made various claims against the defendant, including: breach of privacy or intrusion upon seclusion; pecuniary damages for appropriation of personality; and punitive damages.

The interpretation given to s 4 by the Court of Appeal does not prevent a defendant who wants to make a payment but wishes it to be taken into account against any damages which might be awarded against him in future from doing so.

The defendant's response must include what portions of the complaint, if any, the defendant admits to, what specifically the defendant contests, what defenses the defendant may have to any of the allegations made in the complaint, and whether the defendant has claims against the plaintiff or any other party.

The legislation creates a new type of motion where the person being sued (the defendant) can have the claim against them dismissed, as long as the lawsuit arose from «an expression made by the person that relates to a matter of public interest.»

«This is because there is a lot of easy profit to be made on mesiothelioma cases by lawyers: there are so many defendants, and so many cases, that attorneys and defendants find it cheaper to settle for nuisance sums, which add up quickly to an automatic profit for the attorney, even if the case is tried and lost against recalcitrant defendants who dare to expose themselves to lottery litigation.

It will make it impossible to bring a nationwide mass action in state court against defendants who are «at home» in different States.

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.

If a Claimant unreasonably refuses settlement offers by the Defendant or refuses genuine offers to mediate, because the Claimant wants their day in court, it is likely that the Judge will make adverse costs orders against the Claimant (i.e. financially penalise the Claimant).

penalizes the defendant for engaging in public participation «plaintiff» means a person who initiates or maintains a proceeding against a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst a defendant; «proceeding» means any action, suit, matter, cause, counterclaim, appeal, or originating application that is brought in the Supreme Court or the Provincial Court, but does not include a prosecution for an offence or a crime; «public interest» means the whole of the subject matter invites public attention, or a matter in which the public has some substantial concern because it affects the welfare of citizens, or one to which considerable public notoriety or controversy has attached; «public participation» means communication or conduct aimed at influencing public opinion, or promoting further lawful action by the public or any government body, in relation to an issue of public interest; «Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pAgainst Public Participation (SLAPP)» means a claim that arises from a form of expression or public participation, by the person against whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper pagainst whom the claim is asserted that was made in connection with an official proceeding or about a matter of public interest; Purposes of this Act: 2 The purposes of this Act are to a) Establish a statutory right to public participation for every individual; b) Encourage individuals to express themselves on matters of public interest; c) Promote broad participation in debates on matters of public interest; d) Discourage the use of litigation as a means of unduly limiting expression on matters of public interest; and, e) Preserve the right of access to the courts for all proceedings and claims that are not brought or maintained for an improper purpose.

I invested in my counsel (Richard Dearden and his team at Gowlings), the courts and a jury of strangers, to draw a bright line against the statements made by the Defendant.

I see there is a recent 304 paragraph decision in B.C. — Newman et al v. Halstead et al, 2006 BCSC 65 — in which the court awarded damages totalling $ 681,000 against an individual defendant (who did not appear at the trial, hence there was no defence per se) for her liability in making defamatory statements on her website, chat rooms and email about various teachers in which she made allegations of misconduct and allegations that the School Board mishandled or covered up this activity.

If you make a false accusation to ruin someone's life, and then actually have to accuse someone of rape in good faith (God forbid) you have handed that new defendant's lawyer a great tool against you.

Thanks for the comments — on the issue of damages in the first comment above — To be clear — I was lazy in stating the total damages: the $ 681,000 damages awarded against the defendant was made up of smaller awardsl.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court announced that it accepted review of Stoneridge Investment v. Scientific Atlanta, an 8th Circuit decision where the court held that civil liability for damages does not lie against defendants who merely «aid and abet» securities fraud unless those defendants actually made a mistatement.

We recognize that threats of violence made by a defendant against his attorney or the attorney's family may constitute «extremely serious misconduct» that may justify a finding that an indigent defendant has forfeited his right to court - appointed counsel.

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.

A defendant, who jointly with others is found to have obtained a benefit from his offending, should ordinaryily have a confiscation order made against him for the total amount found to have been fraudulently obtained, provided he has realisable assets equal to or in excess of that amount.

«In addition the moment a loan goes into default a basic valuation check should be made either through an automated value model or alternatively even in main web products to ascertain if there is sufficient security and, if not, consideration must be given at that stage, and not at the date of repossession, to a standstill agreement on limitation against the Defendant professional or even the issuing of a protective Claim Form.

However, it is important to keep in mind that defendants will likely contest the claims made against them by any means possible, including by claiming that you assumed the risk inherent in the activity.

As for the dismissal of the claim against the individual defendants, again the decision makes sense.

The judge had been entitled to make orders debarring a defendant from defending the claims brought against him unless he surrendered himself and made proper disclosure of his assets.

(10) BTA Bank v. Ablyazov (CA)[2013] 1 WLR 1854 A judge had not erred in refusing to recuse himself as the trial judge following his finding of contempt against a defendant, as there was no real possibility of bias and the right to make an application had been waived.

First, the defendant against whom your claim is being made must technically possess ownership and or control of the land or premises on which you were injured.

The defense will want to know if there were any statements made at the time of the accident where their agents or representatives gave «admissions against interest» — in other words, said things that admitted the defendant is to blame for what happened.