Sentences with phrase «ordered against the appellant»

Costs of the appeal of $ 35,000 ordered against the appellant husband.

Costs of $ 3000 ordered against the appellant wife.

Costs of $ 3000 were ordered against the appellant wife.

Costs of $ 15,000 ordered against the appellant husband.

Not exact matches

The proceedings arose out of a possession order obtained against the second appellant and an anti-social behaviour injunction against both appellants, in December 2004, which they appealed.

By the time the appeal against the possession order, which also involved the anti-social behaviour order, both appellants were represented by SWL.

Blue Holdings v Unites States of America [2014] EWCA Civ 1291: Appearing for the Appellants in their successful appeal against a worldwide freezing order obtained by the US Government.

After the police released the appellant from arrest without charge, two newspapers applied to lift a Crown Court order postponing his identification in contemporaneous reports of the criminal trial on the ground that there were now no «pending or imminent» proceedings against the appellant that might be prejudiced by publication.

Similarly, in Erdmann v Complaints Inquiry Committee, 2016 ABCA 145 (CanLII), Justices Jack Watson, Bruce McDonald and Frederica Schutz dismissed an appeal of a professional disciplinary body's decision against the appellant, where she had been found guilty of three counts of unprofessional conduct as a chartered accountant and ordered to pay fines and costs.

A majority of the Court of Appeal (Justices Bruce McDonald and Barbara Lea Veldhuis) upheld the case management judge's decision striking the appellant's statement of claim in relation to a motor vehicle accident and issuing an order for costs against him.

Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of «deport first; appeal later» is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal.

The Court of Appeal determined that the effect of the order under appeal was to «permanently foreclose» the Appellant from obtaining a determination of its claims against the personal defendants on their merits — a result that amounted to an injustice.

The trial judge made strong findings against the appellant, including that the renovations were «grossly in violation of the [appellant's] obligations» (at paragraph 17), and that the renovations were in «dereliction of the responsibility of a committee, who should have the interest of the incapable party in mind» (at paragraph 24), resulting in the judge ordering the expenditures to be charged back to the appellant.

Rule 34A (2A) provides: «If the Appeal Tribunal allows an appeal, in full or in part, it may make a costs order against the respondent specifying the respondent pay to the appellant an amount no greater than any fee paid by the appellant under a notice issued by the Lord Chancellor».

She subsequently obtained a consent order adding the individual appellants, all directors of Local 773, as defendants, and amended the statement of claim to plead that that the individual respondents were jointly and severally liable for her claim as against Local 773.

Plaintiff - Appellant Richard Lee Pollard, a federal inmate, appeals the district court's order dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims against employees of a private corporation operating a federal prison under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.

The order arises out of a contempt motion brought in the course of the efforts of the appellants, Joseph and Pepi Greenberg, to enforce a judgment against the respondent, Steven Nowack.

The appellant was required to obtain leave to commence any proceeding against the respondents, pursuant to the February 13, 2015 order of Varpio J. Justice Gareau properly denied leave when the claims could not possibly succeed because of the expiry of limitation periods.