Sentences with phrase «reasonable exercise of the discretion»

[span style = «font - size: 12.16 px; line - height: 15.808 px;»] He leads his audience to believe that the primary reason for delay is that Crowns are zealously prosecuting every charge that comes before them without any considered reasonable exercise of discretion, that no charge gets diverted and no case gets resolved.

Not exact matches

However, like other traders, they exercise reasonable discretion about taking trades with a low probability of success.

Once possession proceedings have been started, the court has an opportunity under Administration of Justice Act 1970 (AJA 1970), s 36 (amended by AJA 1973, s 8) to exercise its discretion to adjourn or stay the proceedings, or suspend an order for possession, if it appears that the borrower is likely, within a reasonable period of time, to pay the mortgage arrears.

The Court also rejected the trial Judge's finding that the law was sound because the mandatory minimum sentence only applied where the Crown elected to proceed by indictment and that the «reasonable exercise of Crown discretion would result in summary proceedings».

Factors basic to the exercise of this discretion are whether the defendants would suffer prejudice if the use of the journal was permitted, and whether there was a reasonable explanation for the plaintiff's failure to disclose it.

Does the Times» decision reflect media bias, as many top Republicans charge, or what the Times claims is a reasonable exercise of editorial discretion?

A three - judge PTAB panel denied institution of the follow - on petitions in November 2016, citing the Board's exercise of discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 314 (a), which states that, «The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition filed under section 311 and any response filed under section 313 shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition.»

However, the motion judge then went on to exercise his discretion, under s. 106 of the Courts of Justice Act, to grant a stay of proceedings, stating that «because Chevron Corp does not have assets here, and there is no reasonable prospect that it will do so in the future, there is no prospect for any recovery here.»

In considering the factors relevant to the exercise of the court's discretion, under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA1980), to extend the limitation period beyond that specified in LA 1980, s 11 what matters most is not the length of the delay itself, but the reasons for that delay and its potentially prejudicial effect; moreover, it may be reasonable to delay issuing proceedings on account of the defendant's impecuniosity.

Staying the proceedings is an appropriate exercise of discretion in instances in which the Crown prosecutor determines that there is a reasonable likelihood of recommencing the proceedings but it has become necessary, for example, for the police to conduct further investigation that was previously unforeseen.

Although the Deskbook appears silent on the factors to be weighed in exercising the discretion to direct a stay of proceedings, the decision to prosecute test, contained in s. 2.3.2, includes consideration of whether there is a «reasonable prospect of conviction».

It first considered whether the standby duty directive was a reasonable exercise of the Employer's discretion under the Management Rights clause of the collective agreement in light of its effect on the lawyers» personal lives and the Employer's business objectives.

Court held that where a duly constituted community association board, upon reasonable investigation and in good faith, exercises discretion within the scope of its authority under the relevant statutes, courts should defer to the board's authority and presumed expertise.

In exercising his discretion as to what constitute «reasonable expenses», the Judge considered the proportionality between the expense incurred and the amounts at stake; the amounts an unsuccessful party could reasonably expect to pay and the degree of complexity of the matter.

The judge held that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success in his claim, and indeed the better side of the argument; that, although there was a good arguable case for English law and jurisdiction, the claimant did not have the better argument — in respect of jurisdiction, the defendant had much the better side of the argument; and that since it was common ground that if the contracts had been made, they had been made in England, the English court had a basis for exercising its discretion to take jurisdiction under CPR 6.20 (5)(a)(now 6BPD.3 — 3.1 (6)(a).

Prof. Conduct 123 (2001)(subject to the operational structure and content described in the opinion, a lawyer may affiliate with an online legal services website); Nebraska Op. 07 - 05 (lawyer may participate in internet lawyer directory which identifies itself as a directory, disclaims being a referral service and only lists basic information about lawyers without recommending specific lawyers and charges a reasonable, flat annual advertising fee); New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising Op. 36 (2006)(lawyer may pay flat fee to internet marketing company for exclusive website listing for particular county in specific practice area if listing includes prominent, unmistakable disclaimer stating the listings are paid advertisements and not endorsements or authorized referrals); North Carolina Op. 2004 - 1 (lawyer may participate in for - profit online service that is a hybrid referral service - legal directory, provided there is no fee - sharing with the service and communications are truthful); Oregon Op. 2007 - 180 (2007)(lawyer may pay nationwide internet referral service for listing if listing is not false or misleading and does not imply that the lawyer can represent clients outside jurisdictions of the lawyer's license, fee is not based on number of referrals, retained clients or revenue generated by listing and the service does not exercise discretion in matching clients with lawyers); Rhode Island 2005 - 01 (permitting website that enables lawyers to post information about their services and respond to anonymous requests for legal services in exchange for flat annual membership fee if website exercises no discretion over which requests lawyers may access); South Carolina 01 - 03 (lawyer may pay internet advertising service fee determined by the number of «hits» that the service produces for the lawyer provided that the service does not steer business to any particular lawyer and the payments are not based on whether user ultimately becomes a client); Texas Op. 573 (2006)(lawyer may participate in for - profit internet service that matches potential clients and lawyers if selection process is fully automated and performed by computers without the exercise of human discretion); Virginia Advertising Op.