Sentences with phrase «respondent parties to the proceedings»

I am therefore pleased to see that changes are being proposed to the provisions relating to the rights of persons to become and remain as respondent parties to the proceedings.

Not exact matches

Thus, the EU may, either by way of request or upon the invitation of the Strasbourg Court, become a co-respondent along with the respondent Member State (Article 3 (5)-RRB-, giving it the status of a «party» to the proceedings.

«[T] he general understanding that parties to the original proceedings are automatically to be named as respondents when these proceedings are subject to judicial review was developed in the context of adversarial proceedings, in which the competing rights of two or more parties are adjudicated, and not necessarily where the proceedings, as here, are in the nature of an inquiry,» she wrote.

It is likely that the unsuccessful respondent will be unable to re-litigate the allegations that founded an award for (for example) unfair dismissal in PHA 1997 proceedings, as an issue estoppel arises: «Where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in the cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant one of the parties seeks to reopen that issue» (Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, [1991] 3 All ER 41, per Lord Keith of Kinkel).

a) the respondent was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time proceedings were instituted; b) the respondent has submitted to the jurisdiction either expressly or by defending on the merits of the case without objecting to the jurisdiction at the first available opportunity; c) the creditor was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time proceedings were instituted; d) the child for whom maintenance was ordered was habitually resident in the State of origin at the time proceedings were instituted, provided that the respondent has lived with the child in that State or has resided in that State and provided support for the child there; e) except in disputes relating to maintenance obligations in respect of children, there has been agreement to the jurisdiction in writing by the parties; or f) the decision was made by an authority exercising jurisdiction on a matter of personal status or parental responsibility, unless that jurisdiction was based solely on the nationality of one of the parties.

a) recognition and enforcement of the decision is manifestly incompatible with the public policy («ordre public») of the State addressed; b) the decision was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure; c) proceedings between the same parties and having the same purpose are pending before an authority of the State addressed and those proceedings were the first to be instituted; d) the decision is incompatible with a decision rendered between the same parties and having the same purpose, either in the State addressed or in another State, provided that this latter decision fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition and enforcement in the State addressed; e) in a case where the respondent has neither appeared nor was represented in proceedings in the State of origin -

Over 85 per cent of respondents deemed it acceptable for lawyers to access and use the information found on the online social networking profiles of the parties in a case, which forms part of the public domain, as evidence in proceedings.

She was not a party to the proceedings against the respondent and no order affecting her 50 % ownership interest in the home could be made.

The Committee, having taken note of the explanations provided by the delegation, invites the State party to envisage regulating the burden of proof in civil proceedings involving racial discrimination so that once an alleged victim has established a prima facie case that he or she has been a victim of such discrimination, it shall be for the respondent to provide evidence of an objective and reasonable justification for differential treatment.

The Australian Government funds many elements of the native title system, including the «respondent funding scheme», which can provide financial assistance to certain «non-claimant» parties to participate in native title proceedings.

In 2002 - 2003 over $ 10million was provided to respondent parties, other than State and Commonwealth parties, to participate in native title proceedings.

Instead of tweaking around the question of who it is «reasonable» to assist, there needs to be an assessment of the impact of respondent parties on the proceedings.

Respondent parties to native title proceedings have historically included a wide range of groups and individuals such as recreationists, pastoralists, miners, local governments and industry bodies, many of whom derive their interest in the land from government.

If the NNTT's opinion is against the applicant, none of the respondent parties are likely to continue to engage seriously in mediation for the consensual resolution of the proceedings.

This suggests that anthropologists, historians and others may still be contracted by third party respondents to participate in native title proceedings.

Similarly, giving respondents the opportunity to withdraw from proceedings as of right at any time prior to the hearing of the evidence may assist in reducing the number of parties to an application.

There is ample anecdotal evidence to support the opposite view, that respondents, including government parties, often delay the resolution of proceedings by taking an inordinate amount of time to review evidence of connection, and by insisting that bureaucratic processes be followed before commencing mediation or negotiation in instances where this should not be required.

Some of the parties may only have minor interests in the proceedings, yet through their involvement (or lack thereof) they may be able to hinder or even prevent the approval of a consent determination agreed to by all other respondents, including the primary respondent.

In my view, proceedings relating to native title determination applications have been unnecessarily overburdened by minor respondent parties, often funded by the Commonwealth pursuant to section 183 of the Act.

If the NNTT's opinion is contrary to the claimant's view, none of the respondent parties is likely to continue to engage seriously in mediation for the consensual resolution of the proceedings.

Alternatively, the Government could explore options to enable a reduced form of participation in native title proceedings for certain respondents, such as those who may seek only to be added as a party to ensure that their rights and interests are preserved under any final determination.

Most commonly, this assistance is provided through a legal aid scheme where respondent parties to native title claims receive reimbursement for the legal fees they incur in native title proceedings.

REALTOR ® nonprincipals and REALTOR - ASSOCAITE ® s who invoke arbitration in this manner, or who are affiliated with a respondent and have a vested financial interest in the outcome, have the right to be present throughout the proceedings and to participate but are not considered to be parties.

79 DOS 99 Matter of DOS v. Pagano - disclosure of agency relationships; failure to appear at hearing; proper business practices; unauthorized practice of law; unearned commissions; vicarious liability; fraudulent practice; jurisdiction; ex parte hearing may proceed upon proof of proper service; DOS has jurisdiction after expiration of respondents» licenses as acts of misconduct occurred and the proceedings were commenced while the respondents were licensed; licensee fails to timely provide seller client with agency disclosure form prior to entering into listing agreement and fails to timely provide agency disclosure form to buyer upon first substantive contact; broker fails to make it clear for which party he is acting; broker violates 19 NYCRR 175.24 by using exclusive right to sell listing agreement without mandatory definitions of «exclusive right to sell» and «exclusive agency»; broker breaches fiduciary duties to seller clients by misleading them as to buyer's ability to financially consummate the transaction; broker breaches his fiduciary duty to seller by referring seller to the attorney who represented the buyers when he knew or should have known such attorney could not properly protect seller's interests; improper for broker to use listing agreements providing for broker to retain one half of any deposit if forfeited by buyer as such forfeiture clause could, by its terms, allow broker to retain part of the deposit when broker did not earn a commission; broker must conduct business under name as it appears on license; broker engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in preparing contracts for purchase and sale of real estate which did not contain a clause making it subject to the approval of the parties» attorneys and were not a form recommended by a joint bar / real estate board committee; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using sales contract which purported to change the terms of the listing agreement to include a higher commission; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness and incompetency in using contracts of sale which were unclear, ambiguous, vague and incomplete; broker failed to amend purchase agreement to reflect amendment to increase deposit amount; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in back - dating purchase agreements; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness in participating in scheme to have seller hold undisclosed second mortgage and to mislead first mortgagee about the purchaser's financial ability to purchase; broker demonstrated untrustworthiness by claiming unearned commission and filing affidavit of entitlement for unearned commission; DOS fails to establish by substantial evidence that respondent acted as undisclosed dual agent; corporate broker bound by the knowledge acquired by and is responsible for acts committed by its licensees within the actual or apparent scope of their authority; corporate and individual brokers» licenses revoked, no action taken on application for renewal until proof of payment of sum of $ 2,000.00 plus interests for deposits unlawfully retained

k. «Party» (Parties) means the complainant (s) or respondent (s) in disciplinary proceedings and in arbitration hearings referred to in Part Four and Part Ten of this Manual.