Sentences with phrase «order of the court extending»

In a motion on notice filed pursuant to section 36 (5) 37 and 41 of the 1999 constitution and sections 1 (1) and (2) and 266 of the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015, the ex NSA also sought for order of the court extending order of November 3 permitting treatment of his ailment abroad.

Not exact matches

He said organisations extending that kind of credit were often faster to recoup their losses, which can involve bailiffs, court orders and repossessions, than traditional lenders.

On March 14, 2016 the Court issued an order, amending and extending the Notice of Objection Bar Date (as set out in the Claims Procedure Order dated June 11, 2015) to 28 days following April 15, 2016, or such later date as the Court may Oorder, amending and extending the Notice of Objection Bar Date (as set out in the Claims Procedure Order dated June 11, 2015) to 28 days following April 15, 2016, or such later date as the Court may OOrder dated June 11, 2015) to 28 days following April 15, 2016, or such later date as the Court may OrderOrder.

On December 8, 2015, the Court issued an order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including February 12, order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including February 12, Order) until and including February 12, 2016.

On September 26, 2016, the Court issued an order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including January 20, order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including January 20, Order) until and including January 20, 2017.

On March 14, 2016, the Court issued an order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including April 15, order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including April 15, Order) until and including April 15, 2016.

On February 12, 2016, the Court issued an order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including March 15, order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including March 15, Order) until and including March 15, 2016.

April 26, 2017 On April 26, 2017, the Court issued an order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including September 29, order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including September 29, Order) until and including September 29, 2017.

On August 14, 2015, the Court issued an order extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including November 16, order extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including November 16, Order) until and including November 16, 2015.

January 25, 2018 On January 25, 2018, the Court issued an order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including May 15, order, extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including May 15, Order) until and including May 15, 2018.

On October 30, 2015, the Court issued an order extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including December 11, order extending the Stay Period (as defined in Paragraph 17 of the Initial Order) until and including December 11, Order) until and including December 11, 2015.

Yusuf Halilu, the presiding judge of the Abuja court, extended Ubah's detention order following an ex-parte application filed by the DSS.

The Court in the said case, ordered that the Electoral Commission extend the nomination period of Monday 7 November 2016 to 17.00 hours GMT on Tuesday 8 November 2016.

This could be extended as part of the wider changes to the EU's institutional structures that the Germans are keen to secure in order to anchor the new eurozone arrangements firmly in a rules based system — think European Court of Justice sanctions for breaking debt and deficit rules.

The Supreme Court has ordered the Electoral Commission to extend the nomination period to the close of Tuesday, November 8 2016 for all disqualified presidential aspirants.

The Supreme Court on Monday threw out the EC's case challenging Dr. Papa Kwesi Nduom's disqualification, and ordered the Commission to rather extend the nomination period to the close of Tuesday, November, 8 2016, for all disqualified presidential aspirants.

This follows the Supreme Court ruling that ordered them to extend the period for the receipt of nomination to the close of Tuesday, November 8, to enable disqualified presidential hopefuls to correct errors on their nomination forms.

The trial court ordered the school district to extend facilities offers to charter schools for the 2011 - 2012 school that submitted legally sufficient facilities requests and to make those and future offers Proposition 39 - compliant during the term of the settlement agreement.

Court protection is also extended to debts that resulted from a divorce or separation agreement and the ex-spouse doesn't need to file a complaint in order to protect this type of debt from being discharged.

In order to support this finding, the Court suggests that the legislative measures provided for in Article 15 (1) apply to providers of electronic communications services [74] and extend to measures requiring data retention [75] and access to retained data by national authorities [76].

When the court date arrives, we will provide you with the best representation possible to either enforce an extended stay of the restraining order, or have it lifted where there is no basis for it to exist.

In Upjohn Co. v. United States, 6 the United States Supreme Court held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilCourt held that a company's attorney — client privilege extends to company counsel's communications with employees in certain prescribed circumstances.7 Rather than providing a simple objective test, the Upjohn court instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilcourt instead established five factors to guide courts in determining whether the company's privilege should extend to counsel's communications with its employees: (1) whether the communications were made by employees at the direction of superior officers of the company for the purpose of obtaining legal advice; (2) whether the communications contained information necessary for counsel to render legal advice, which was not otherwise available from «control group» management; (3) whether the matters communicated were within the scope of the employee's corporate duties; (4) whether the employee knew that the communications were for the purpose of the company obtaining legal advice; and (5) whether the communications were ordered to be kept confidential by the employee's superiors, including that the communications were considered confidential at the time and kept confidential subsequent to the interview.8 When these elements are established, courts generally consider communications between company counsel and an employee to be within the scope of the company's attorney — client privilege.9

Moreover, the Court makes clear that the judicial authority has the possibility not only to refuse to extend the detention period, but also to substitute detention with a less coercive measure or to order the release of the irregular migrants.

In particular, with regard to Article 15 on the detention of irregular migrants prior to their removal the Court has so far explained how the period of detention should be calculated and when there is a «reasonable prospect of removal» (Kadzoev); it has precluded the incarceration of irregular migrants during the return process on the sole ground that they remain on the territory of a Member State even though an order to leave exists (El Dridi), and it has attempted to strike a balance between the right to be heard and the efficiency of the administrative procedure to extend the period of detention (G & R).

The court can extend the order for up to one additional year if the abused parent still fears for his or her safety at the end of the first year.

In re closing: order extending time to file items due to be filed or to conduct hearings required to be held on August 8, 2014 in the Appellate Courts, Circuit Courts, Family Courts, and District Courts of the First Circuit

In re closing: order extending time to file items due to be filed or to conduct hearings required to be held on Friday September 2, 2016 in the Circuit, District and District Family Courts of the Second Circuit, County of Maui

In re closing: order extending time to file items due to be filed or to conduct hearings required to be held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 in the District and District Family Courts in the Second Circuit on the Island of Molokai

As part of the Supreme Court's August 27, 2014 Administrative Order revising implementation of the 365 day rule, «In the event no request for a final hearing is received by the Clerk of Court within the time period prescribed and there is no other order by the Chief Administrative Judge extending the case, the Clerk of Court shall prepare an Order of Dismissal without prejudice and provide the order and file for review by the Chief Administrative Judge.&rOrder revising implementation of the 365 day rule, «In the event no request for a final hearing is received by the Clerk of Court within the time period prescribed and there is no other order by the Chief Administrative Judge extending the case, the Clerk of Court shall prepare an Order of Dismissal without prejudice and provide the order and file for review by the Chief Administrative Judge.&rorder by the Chief Administrative Judge extending the case, the Clerk of Court shall prepare an Order of Dismissal without prejudice and provide the order and file for review by the Chief Administrative Judge.&rOrder of Dismissal without prejudice and provide the order and file for review by the Chief Administrative Judge.&rorder and file for review by the Chief Administrative Judge.»

Reducing the time is very difficult in a court system that positively delights in extending the time in order to grind litigants down so that they settle before reaching the government expenses of paid judges, paid court staff and paid infrastructure.

This applies both where that advice is limited in time, eg until after a criminal defence statement has been filed and served and, worse still, the advice is given not to make such a response at all; • (f) the date on which a party to care proceedings is to file and serve a criminal defence statement in linked criminal proceedings is wholly irrelevant to the court's determination of the date on which that party should file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement in the care proceedings; • (g) the mere fact that a party is ordered to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served in criminal proceedings is not a ground for failing to comply with the former order; • (h) it [is not] a ground for an application to extend the time for compliance with an order to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement until a date after the criminal defence statement has been filed and served; and • (i) any issue about alleged prejudice to a defendant in criminal proceedings based on him being required to file and serve a response to threshold and / or to file and serve a narrative statement before the date of a criminal defence statement is to be filed and served, or at all, only arises and is only potentially relevant if and when an application is made by the police and / or a co-accused for statements and documents filed in the family proceedings to be disclosed into linked criminal proceedings [see Re C (A Minor)(Care Proceedings: Disclosure)[1997] Fam 76, [1997] 2 WLR 322, sub nom Re EC (Disclosure of Material)[1996] 2 FLR 725, CA].

A court might specify that a Charter - compliant scheme would include limiting features such as: (1) approximately 30 - day time limits on separation, within which the prison can decide whether and how to arrange a transfer, dispute resolution, enhanced supervision protocols, medical treatment or other technique to facilitate return to the ordinary prison community; (2) a requirement that the prison obtain a court order for any separation that extends beyond the prescribed time limit; and (3) an independent, external authority to review placement decisions, conduct regular inspections of segregation units, and ensure the provision of ordinary programming and health care to segregated prisoners.

In R v Croft, 2014 ABQB 215, a case on which I was counsel, Justice Brian R. Burrows of the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, extended the Telus ruling to encompass historic text messages that were seized by a production order under s. 487.012.

Section 141 relates to judicial review; it substitutes the existing section 31 (5) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and extends the power of the High Court in respect of quashing orders.

Permits the judicial emergency order to suspend, toll, extend, or otherwise grant relief from time limits or filing requirements in any court affected by the order and allows designation of a neighboring jurisdiction as proper venue for civil and criminal proceedings.

If the hearing on the extended protection order you're appealing was recorded, you must order a copy of the hearing transcript from the court reporter and deposit $ 100 with the court (unless some greater amount was ordered).

To appeal the grant of an extended protection order, the adverse party must complete and file the forms below with the justice court where the case is pending.

You can file a motion asking the court to dissolve or modify the order, or you can appeal from the court's grant of an extended protection order.

Where the claim was the third claim brought by a claimant arising out of the same set of facts about the enforceability of a charge the court ordered that it be struck out and made an extended civil restraint order in respect of the claimant.

The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada in this case was whether a warrant to search a location automatically extends to computers found in that location, or whether specific judicial authorization is required in order for computers to be searched.

It is extended also to controversies between a State and foreign states; and if the argument taken from the order of designation were good, it would be meant here that this Court might have cognizance of a suit where a State is plaintiff, and some foreign state a defendant, but not where a foreign state brings a suit against a State.

The Labour court sought clarification from the ECJ as to whether the protection afforded by the Directives extended to an applicant who had no intention of seeking employment, but instead sought the status of job applicant in order to bring a claim for compensation.

Even if the reviewing judge's order could be set aside, one of the inherent jurisdictional limits of the court is its inability to extend into the spiritual.

-- Enabling parenting coordination by agreement or court order; — Amending the Commercial Arbitration Act to address family arbitrations; — integrating reproductive technologies into determining a child's legal parents; — Replacing the terms «custody» and «access» with «guardianship» and «parenting time»; — Defining «guardianship» through a list of «parental responsibilities» that can be allocated to allow for more customized parenting arrangements; — Extending the legislative property division regime to common - law spouses who have lived together for two years in a marriage - like relationship or who are in marriage - like relationship of some permanence and have children together; — Excluding certain types of property (e.g. pre-relationship property, gifts, and inheritances) from the pool of family property to be divided 50 - 50; and — Providing that debts are subject to equal division.

I've asked CanLII about this and whether the practice extends to other situations where there's no court order banning the identification of the parties.

The provision would extend the powers and rights of audience of DCWs by enabling them to conduct: - summary trials in magistrates» courts; - certain proceedings in magistrates» courts, including proceedings relating to offences triable only on indictment by a judge and jury at the crown court; - applications and other proceedings relating to «preventative civil orders» such as anti-social behaviour orders; and - certain proceedings (other than criminal proceedings) assigned to the director of public prosecutions by the attorney general under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, s 3 (2)(g).

In T.K. the Court of Appeal recognizes that it is more problematic to extend «respect» to the stated reasons for a move in cases where there has been no previous determination with respect to custody, or where there is a pre-existing joint custody order or de facto joint custody / shared residency arrangement.

After the expiry of the 21 - day period, unless it is extended by a court order, the service provider would be required to destroy any information that would not be retained in the ordinary course of business.

15 (1) On application, a judge of the Supreme Court may by order shorten or extend the time for doing anything under this Part.

The draft response of the New South Wales Government foreshadows a desire to extend the current scope of the ACPP to cover all placements of Indigenous children and not just those following a court order, and to articulate more clearly the circumstances in which discretion is exercised not to apply the ACPP.