Sentences with phrase «relevant error of law»

If the trial judge's summary of the evidence is accurate, and it was open to the judge to accept the plaintiffs» experts» evidence — no misapprehension, nothing else that amounts to a palpable and overriding error, nothing else that amounts to a relevant error of law on the admissibility of evidence — then the result is supported by the evidence and is not (supposed to be) subject to appellate intervention.

Not exact matches

Because in this case both statutory decision makers (ie the Standards Board and the Adjudication Panel) comprise persons identified by Parliament «because of their experience knowledge and position to apply the relevant Code», therefore «absent an error of law the court is to pay considerable respect to the decision of what is an informed domestic tribunal».

The ICS will include an appeal mechanism, giving the tribunal appellate jurisdiction over (a) errors in the application or interpretation of applicable law; (b) manifest errors in the appreciation of the facts, including the appreciation of relevant domestic law; and (c) the grounds set out in Article 52 (1) of the ICSID Convention, such as the presence of corruption or a serious departure from the fundamental rules of procedure.

Although this appeal does not raise only issues of credibility, I agree with the majority of the Court of Appeal that the trial judge's decision was reasonable, was supported by the evidence and that he had committed no error in the application of the relevant law to the facts.

In essence it was submitted that that constituted an error of law which infected the entire decision and although the tribunal had purported to conduct the necessary balancing exercise, that highly relevant consideration was not, or not adequately, addressed.

On appeal, the Crown asserted errors of law alone on the basis the judge erred in: (i) failing to properly instruct himself on the legal principles applicable to considering evidence of collusion; (ii) failing to consider all the evidence relevant to the issue of collusion; (iii) misapprehending the evidence relating to collusion; and (iv) correctly assessing the elements of perjury in one of the particulars.

At the Court of Appeal, UBC alleged that the Tribunal had made several errors of fact and law, including in refusing to consider modifications of the residency program as relevant to finding that disability was a factor in Dr. Kelly's adverse treatment and in considering both the procedural and substantive elements of the duty to accommodate.

The FCA held that the Federal Court's finding that these facts were relevant was a question of mixed fact and law and the Minister had not demonstrated palpable and overriding error by the Federal Court judge.