However, perhaps a prosecution of a law society under Criminal Code s. 122 for its failure to perform its duties in regard to access to justice by at least trying to solve the unaffordable legal services problem would fail because, even if an official knows that a decision does affect his / her personal interests, there is no offence, «if the decision is made honestly and in a genuine belief that it was
a proper exercise of his jurisdiction.
Not exact matches
However, in cases where a failure to give
proper disclosure has made a fair trial impossible, or prevented the court from doing justice, or in instances
of a flagrant abuse
of process, a superior court will
exercise its inherent
jurisdiction — its power to control its own procedure so as to prevent it from being used to achieve injustice — to strike out the case before or during a trial (see for example Raja v Van Hoogstraten and others [2006] EWHC 1315 (Ch) and CPR 3.4 (5)-RRB-.
(c) Until 1972 the courts made no attempt to narrow the circumstances in which it would be
proper for a judge to
exercise his
jurisdiction to reverse his decision prior to the sealing
of the order.
«Without
proper service
of process, consent, waiver, or forfeiture, a court may not
exercise personal
jurisdiction over a named defendant.»
Teare J concluded, obiter, that even if he was found to have erred in his findings on the jurisdictional gateways, he considered that this was not a
proper case in which the court should
exercise its discretion and order service out
of the
jurisdiction due to the risk as to whether such an order would be enforceable in the UAE or indeed, consistent with UAE law.
[145] To paraphrase what this court said in White, supra, at 604... in the
exercise of our responsibility for the state
of the law in this
jurisdiction, I think that the
proper course is to correct the McNaughton error now.
Accordingly, the judge had had
jurisdiction to prevent publication
of the question and answer and it was
proper to
exercise that
jurisdiction, albeit that an order under s 4 (2) was not the correct way
of achieving it.
Military commissions organized during the late civil war, in a State not invaded and not engaged in rebellion, in which the Federal courts were open, and in the
proper and unobstructed
exercise of their judicial functions, had no
jurisdiction to try, convict, or sentence for any criminal offence, a citizen who was neither a resident
of a rebellious State nor a prisoner
of war, nor a person in the military or naval service.
107 DOS 98 Matter
of DOS v. Sosis - subject matter
jurisdiction; due process; failure to appear at hearing;
proper business practices; deposits; fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden
of proof; DOS has subject matter
jurisdiction if at the time the disciplinary proceeding was commenced by
proper service
of a notice
of hearing and complaint the party was (i) licensed to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (ii) an applicant for either a license or for the renewal
of a license to engage in regulated real estate activities, or (iii) eligible to automatically renew the prior license under the two - year limitation provision
of RPL § 441 (2); ex parte hearing is permissible upon proof
of proper notice
of hearing; DOS has subject matter
jurisdiction where party was licensed at the time proceeding was commenced and, where at time
of hearing, although not licensed was eligible to automatically apply to renew pursuant to RPL § 441 (2); licensee operated a real estate brokerage business under an unlicensed name; licensee unlawfully retains deposit funds after deposit monies were delivered on the condition that same were to be disbursed only on the principal's consent and approval and said consent and approval was not given; licensee's illegal
exercise of right
of ownership over his principal's funds spawns conversion and constitutes a fraudulent practice; DOS fails its burden
of proof to establish licensee failed to deposit trust funds in a segregated escrow account, engaged in fraud and changed business location without notice to DOS; restitution ordered in the amount
of $ 1,900 plus interest, fine
of $ 1,000 and any further application for licensure shall not be considered until applicant pays said fine and provides proof
of payment
of restitution