Sentences with phrase «previous high court decision»

[27] Previous High Court decisions also support a non-formalistic, substantive understanding of equality.

Not exact matches

A number of analysts believed that Gawker stood a good chance of having the Hogan judgment either reversed or significantly reduced, especially since two higher - court judges had already ruled in previous decisions that the publication of an excerpt of Hulk Hogan's sex tape was newsworthy, and therefore covered by the protection of the First Amendment.

«Given that the previous Federal Court decision raised complex legal issues it was prudent for Canada to obtain a decision from a higher court.&rCourt decision raised complex legal issues it was prudent for Canada to obtain a decision from a higher court.&rcourt.»

This supports findings from previous studies of the decision - making processes of other high level courts, including the US Supreme Court.

He did state that the driving in question could lead to liability in a civil trial, but he did not meet the higher criminal standard for dangerous driving outlined by previous decisions before the Supreme Court of Canada.

Stare decisis is Latin for «to stand by a decision» and legally translates into the doctrine that says courts are bound by previous decisions, or precedents, particularly when a case has been decided by a higher court.

The High Court decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the cCourt decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the ccourt's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the courtcourt.

In a previous article, Losing Momentive: A Roadmap to Higher Cramdown Interest Rates, we explored how the judicial cramdown interest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a 2015 decision by the District Court for the...

In finding Commission Decision 2002/520 establishing the Safe Harbor to be invalid (para. 106), the Court affirms the need for a high standard of data protection as set out in its previous case law such as Digital Rights Ireland (Joined Cases C - 293 / 12 and C - 594 / 12), and holds that while data protection standards in third countries need not be «identical» to those in the EU, they must be «equivalent» (para. 73).

Soon after the CJEU decision, the Irish High Court quashed the Irish DPC's previous decision not to investigate Facebook Ireland regarding the allegations in Mr. Schrems's first complaint.

Each of the previous national representative bodies in Australia was set up before the decision of the High Court in Mabo v Queensland (No. 2) in 1992.

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.

The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 6 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency7 and also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik.

This interpretation recognises what previous High Court and Federal Court decisions have also recognised — that the connection that Indigenous people have with country is essentially a spiritual one.14 For instance, in Milirrpum v Nabalco Justice Blackburn referred to the fact that: 15