Sentences with phrase «risks in a given jurisdiction»

Not exact matches

«Given the potential reputational and financial risks of non-compliance, it's crucial that financial institutions place a high priority on meeting compliance deadlines in all jurisdictions in which they do business,» said Michael Plowgian, a principal in the International Tax practice of KPMG LLP and former senior advisor at the OECD.

As stated in Briggs and Rees Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005) 4th edition at paras 2.02 to 2.07 & 2.105: (i) The fundamental rule was that if a case fell within the Brussels Regulation, the Regulation alone allocated jurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept tJurisdiction and Judgments (2005) 4th edition at paras 2.02 to 2.07 & 2.105: (i) The fundamental rule was that if a case fell within the Brussels Regulation, the Regulation alone allocated jurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept tjurisdiction over the defendant; (ii) There were three overriding principles of interpretation: (i) the wording of the regulation should so far as possible be given a meaning which was common and uniform across the various member states; (ii) provisions which allowed a defendant to be sued against his will in a member state other than his domicile were to be construed narrowly; (iii) the risk of inconsistent decisions should be kept to a minimum.

When the Commercial Court refused Khrapunov's application to give evidence by videolink from Switzerland, it did so on essentially 3 grounds: (1) Khrapunov had delayed too long before applying; (2) so far as the risk of extradition to Kazakhstan was concerned, that risk would be no greater in England than it is in Switzerland; and (3) so far as the risk of extradition to Russia or Ukraine was concerned, there was no evidence of criminal proceedings against Khrapunov in either jurisdiction.

The Appellant alleged several grounds of appeal, including that the judge erred in his analysis of the child's habitual residence, in concluding that the Respondent had not acquiesced in the child's relocation, in failing to respect an order of the Montana court that it had no jurisdiction over the child's custody, and in failing to give effect to Article 13 (b) of the Hague Convention, which allows a court to refuse to return a child where there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.

The court relied on section 23 of the Children's Law Reform Act, which gave jurisdiction because the children were in Ontario and were found to be a risk of serious harm if they were to return to Nigeria.