Sentences with phrase «respondent following the court»

This case relates to whether a solicitor acting for an applicant can be found personally liable to pay the costs of the respondent following the court's refusal to grant an application to issue a witness summons against the respondent.

Not exact matches

However, the court would review the following four issues if challenged by the respondent: (1) whether the foreign court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to Taiwanese laws; (2) whether a default judgment is rendered against the losing defendant, but the notice or summons of the initiation of action had been legally served in a reasonable time in the foreign country or had been served through judicial assistance provided under the Taiwanese laws; (3) whether the performance ordered by such judgment or its litigation procedure is against Taiwanese public policy or morals; and (4) whether there exists no mutual recognition between the foreign country and Taiwan.

Section 46 (b) of the Arbitration Law provides that the court may refuse to recognise and enforce a foreign award, if any of the following in submission for recognition and enforcement of foreign award can be proved by the respondent:

Following the release of the ONCA judgment, counsel for the successful appellant wrote to the court to ask about the costs award that had been awarded to the respondent husband at the court below.

Jerome Larkin, Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, by his attorney, Peter L. Rotskoff, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 753 (b), complains of Respondent, D. Michael Rickgauer, who was licensed to practice law in Illinois on November 5, 1987, and alleges that Respondent has engaged in the following conduct which tends to defeat the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute:

According to their advice report, a «large majority» of respondents to the Law Commissions» consultation on unfair terms thought that this area of the law was «unduly uncertain» following a 2009 Supreme Court decision on bank charges.

Following her review of the materials filed by the plaintiff's lawyer and her thorough analysis of the rules governing court approval of settlements for persons under disability, Madam Justice Corthorn noted that there were a number of procedural and substantive problems with the materials before her, including but not limited to the fact that the application record was not served on the respondent and no factum had been filed by the applicant.

For the reasons stated in the following opinion, I believe that so much of the judgment of the California court as holds petitioner's special admissions program unlawful and directs that respondent be admitted to the Medical School must be affirmed.

This procedure was not followed in Buglife; the respondent's case was not put before the court on paper before the applications for permission to appeal and for a PCO were considered by the single Lord Justice.

We agree with the following statement of the Court of Appeal: On the correct application of the legal principles to the facts found by the trial judge, it is an inescapable conclusion that the respondents aided and abetted the offence of trafficking through distribution.

The requirements are as follows: The Family Court of the State has jurisdiction over all actions for divorce and annulment of marriage where either petitioner or respondent, at the time the action was commenced, actually resided in this State, or was stationed in this State as a member of the armed services of the United States, continuously for 6 or more months immediately preceding the commencement of the action.

If the court determines that the respondent's failure to follow the court order was in fact «willful and contumacious», the court may impose a wide range of sanctions in order to coerce the contemnor to comply.

Once the petitioner makes a prima facie case that the court's order has not been followed, the burden of showing that the failure to follow the order was not the respondent's fault lies with the respondent.