Sentences with phrase «where high court decisions»

Not exact matches

Facebook's lawyers are attempting to block a High Court decision in Ireland, where its international business is headquartered, to refer a long - running legal challenge to the bloc's top co

The NCAA tournament is not won on a temporary court built in a football stadium in March but in sweaty gyms where kids who know Michael Jordan only as a small - market team owner work through the tropes of basketball success — hardship, effort, tricked - out Escalades — and adults hang on the decisions of high school juniors.

Bonventre says a Democratic majority could make a difference in some key decisions, but he says the high court in New York has none of the partisan bickering or gridlock experienced in the US Supreme Court, where Presidents in recent decades have made appointments based on a nominee's ideocourt in New York has none of the partisan bickering or gridlock experienced in the US Supreme Court, where Presidents in recent decades have made appointments based on a nominee's ideoCourt, where Presidents in recent decades have made appointments based on a nominee's ideology.

The decisions of public bodies, such as the Secretary of State (and therefore of RSCs where they assume the powers of the Secretary of State), local authorities and schools can be challenged by way of judicial review and other appropriate proceedings in the High Court.

Plaintiffs» legal position is in opposition to the landmark decision of the United State Supreme Court in ACSTO v. Winn, where the High Court upheld a similar tax - credit scholarship program in Arizona.

The states have taken the initiative in this area, especially California, where an attempt to make mileage standards higher than the federal ones, and an attempt ot curb GHGs of power plants await decision in the courts.

This judgment followed on from the well - known decision of Mr Justice Birss in Unwired Planet v Huawei where he determined that the English High Court had jurisdiction to determine portfolio FRAND on a global basis and could grant a so called FRAND injunction against a defendant if it chose not to enter into the licence on the terms determined by the Court.

The Supreme Court issued an 8 - 1, precedential decision in Scott v. Harris, effectively establishing a flat rule that a police officer in a high - speed chase that poses a threat to the safety of others does not violate the Fourth Amendment even where the officer places the fleeing motorist at risk of injury or death.

«The decision to file this suit in the FCT High Court far away from Gombe State where the cause of action arose can not be anything but a sheer decision to abuse the judicial process.

In today's blog, high net worth family and divorce lawyer Lorne N. MacLean, QC,, reviews a recent BC Supreme Court decision where the judge commented on how assessing credibility in a trial involving the use of interpreters severely compromises a judge's ability to assess who is telling the truth.

Grauer J. cited the Ontario Superior Court decision in Canadian National Railway Company v. Google Inc. to support the proposition that a higher hurdle would normally be needed than the normal three - part test in R.J.R. McDonald Inc. v. Canada Attorney, where a plaintiff must simply show there is a serious case to be tried.

Third - party funding arrangements are already familiar in other jurisdictions, in particular in Australia (where they were endorsed by the majority in the Australian High Court decision in Campbells Cash and Carry Limited v Fostif Pty [2006] HCA41), and Germany.

In reaching this decision, the High Court undertook a review of past Singapore case law and legal commentary on the nature and purpose of Article 34 (2)(a)(iii), ultimately deciding that «as a matter of policy, to hold that Art 34 (2)(a)(iii) does not apply, where no other limb under Art 34 (2) would be engaged, would allow an arbitral tribunal to immunize its awards against judicial scrutiny by delivering its conclusions on both jurisdiction and merits in a single award», which would have been an «unsatisfactory result».

This matter has now been heard by the High Court where the decision has been overturned by Justice Singh who was sitting with Mater Gordon - Saker.

David is generally instructed in high profile and heavyweight cases in the High Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribuhigh profile and heavyweight cases in the High Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment TribuHigh Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal.

Using multiple GCS scores was resolved in Liu v. 1226071 Ontario Inc. (Canadian Zhorong Trading Ltd.), where the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge's decision that other GCS scores higher than 9 within a reasonable time did not compromise the catastrophic definition,

Re Grabiec [2015] EWHC 1548 (Ch); [2015] B.P.I.R. 1311 Appeal to High Court following decision of Chief Registrar raising issues regarding the availability of set - off as a defence to a statutory demand, including where the debtor's proof had been rejected in the creditor company's winding up

The High Court will have the power to substitute its own decision for the decision of a court or tribunal in certain circumstances: where the decision maker is a court or tribunal, the decision is quashed on the ground that there has been an error of law and if the High Court is satisfied that it is the only decision the court or tribunal could have reaCourt will have the power to substitute its own decision for the decision of a court or tribunal in certain circumstances: where the decision maker is a court or tribunal, the decision is quashed on the ground that there has been an error of law and if the High Court is satisfied that it is the only decision the court or tribunal could have reacourt or tribunal in certain circumstances: where the decision maker is a court or tribunal, the decision is quashed on the ground that there has been an error of law and if the High Court is satisfied that it is the only decision the court or tribunal could have reacourt or tribunal, the decision is quashed on the ground that there has been an error of law and if the High Court is satisfied that it is the only decision the court or tribunal could have reaCourt is satisfied that it is the only decision the court or tribunal could have reacourt or tribunal could have reached.

The Court of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringeCourt of Appeal decided that a reference to the CJEU was necessary as, although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof was persuasive (as it is the highest civil court in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringecourt in Germany), the meaning of «the Member State where the act of infringement has been committed» in Art. 97 (5) / 125 (5) of the EU Trade Mark Regulation had not been decided by the CJEU, and it considered that the decision not to allocate jurisdiction in circumstances where there was activity in Country A which led to infringement of the EU trade mark in Country B, would give rise to there being no jurisdiction at all for such infringement.

Further, where a claim is brought before the High Court (or the CAT) in respect of an infringement decision (from the CMA, the CAT on an appeal from a decision of the CMA or the European Commission), the court (or the CAT) is bound by that infringement decision once it has become fCourt (or the CAT) in respect of an infringement decision (from the CMA, the CAT on an appeal from a decision of the CMA or the European Commission), the court (or the CAT) is bound by that infringement decision once it has become fcourt (or the CAT) is bound by that infringement decision once it has become final.

Unfortunate decision for the otherwise successful plaintiff but one that should cut both ways; where a plaintiff falls below a defendant's offer to settle but their counsel is able to show they reasonably anticipated an ability to persuade the court of a higher award, this case should help them avoid the denial of their costs.

If you disagree with an administrative decision regarding your unemployment benefits in Nevada — and if you have appealed that decision as high as you can through the Nevada Employment Security Division appeals process (referred to as «exhausting your administrative remedies»)-- you have the right to appeal the final board of review decision to the district court in the county where you were employed and where your claim arose.

The High Court decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the cCourt decision follows hard on the heals of the House of Lords» decision [2008] UKHL 6; [2008] 2 WLR 311, [2008] 2 All ER 1, of 30 January 2008, where the law lords effectively changed the law, (reversing a previous House of Lords» ruling in Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498, 1993] 1 All ER 322, which held that claims arising from intentional assaults were governed by s 2 of LA 1980), and held that an intentional assault fell within LA 1980, s 11, and was therefore subject to a three - year limitation period, which could be extended by reference to knowledge (s 14), or at the court's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the ccourt's discretion (s 33), rather than under LA 1980, s 2, which while providing for a more generous six - year limitation period, was nevertheless not extendable in any circumstances by the courtcourt.

The key points in the court's decision were as follows: (i) It referred to the High Court's decision in R (AW) v Croydon LBC [2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin), [2005] All ER (D) 251 (Dec) which held that where the fresh grounds for asylum were «manifestly nothing of the sort» then a local authority considering whether an applicant's human rights required accommodation to be provided could in limited cases ignore the purported new claim and operate on the assumption that there is no impediment to the individual leaving thcourt's decision were as follows: (i) It referred to the High Court's decision in R (AW) v Croydon LBC [2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin), [2005] All ER (D) 251 (Dec) which held that where the fresh grounds for asylum were «manifestly nothing of the sort» then a local authority considering whether an applicant's human rights required accommodation to be provided could in limited cases ignore the purported new claim and operate on the assumption that there is no impediment to the individual leaving thCourt's decision in R (AW) v Croydon LBC [2005] EWHC 2950 (Admin), [2005] All ER (D) 251 (Dec) which held that where the fresh grounds for asylum were «manifestly nothing of the sort» then a local authority considering whether an applicant's human rights required accommodation to be provided could in limited cases ignore the purported new claim and operate on the assumption that there is no impediment to the individual leaving the UK.

In this case, where the data sought to be produced is the analysis of blood taken from a person for medical purposes following a motor vehicle accident, the level of intrusiveness is high as this Court held in R. v. Taylor, 2013 ABCA 342, 561 A.R. 103 (which decision was upheld by the Supreme Court, [2014] S.C.J. No. 50).

The Quebec Court of Appeal based its decision on last February's Supreme Court of Canada ruling (previously noted on Slaw) in another case, where the highest court refused to find that the mandatory nature ERC curriculum infringes on the parents» and the students» freedom of reliCourt of Appeal based its decision on last February's Supreme Court of Canada ruling (previously noted on Slaw) in another case, where the highest court refused to find that the mandatory nature ERC curriculum infringes on the parents» and the students» freedom of reliCourt of Canada ruling (previously noted on Slaw) in another case, where the highest court refused to find that the mandatory nature ERC curriculum infringes on the parents» and the students» freedom of relicourt refused to find that the mandatory nature ERC curriculum infringes on the parents» and the students» freedom of religion.

So am very pleased when they come out bitterly complaining about DJ's decision, threaten an appeal, where is this tin - pot county court anyway, should have gone to High Court, etc court anyway, should have gone to High Court, etc Court, etc etc..

This followed the case of R (on the application of DSD, Mayor of London & Ors) v the Parole Board [2018] EWHC 694 (Admin), where the High Court quashed the decision to release Worboys and held that the ban was unlawful.

And while the Crown must appeal this decision, it sets the stage for the statute to be considered by a higher court where it may be subject to a more sophisticated level of judicial interpretation.

If the answer to question 2 positive: 3 Prevents European Union law by the national court, the highest court of the state in the area of administrative justice, against whose decisions are not permissible remedies, was in accordance ¡ svnitrostátním law bound in law brought by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, where it appears that such assessments are Acting in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Ucourt, the highest court of the state in the area of administrative justice, against whose decisions are not permissible remedies, was in accordance ¡ svnitrostátním law bound in law brought by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, where it appears that such assessments are Acting in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Ucourt of the state in the area of administrative justice, against whose decisions are not permissible remedies, was in accordance ¡ svnitrostátním law bound in law brought by the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, where it appears that such assessments are Acting in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European UCourt of the Czech Republic, where it appears that such assessments are Acting in accordance with Union law, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European UCourt of Justice of the European Union?

«It's a similar story in # 6 New Jersey, where bad high court decisions have boosted consumer litigation and undermined arbitration agreements in seemingly lawful contracts, and a lax standard for expert testimony continues to attract many products liability plaintiffs from across the country.

Various NTRBs expressed frustration at their funding being tied to «native title outcomes», particularly where, because of the 1998 NTA amendments and subsequent High Court decisions, the range and availability of native title outcomes is decreasing.

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.

Instead, the NTA and High Court decisions have established a system where non-Indigenous interests are provided with greater protection and Indigenous rights are easily extinguished.

Emerging from the High Court decisions in Yarmirr, Miriuwung Gajerrong and Yorta Yorta, is a concept of recognition as not simply the law providing a vehicle for Indigenous people to enjoy their culture and property rights, but rather one where the law becomes a barrier to their enjoyment and protection.

This phrase was directly addressed in the High Court's decision in Yarmirr where the High Court explained that the common law can not recognise Indigenous rights where the two are inconsistent.

The Northern Territory Government, Traditional Owners and other stakeholders with interests in the waters included in this decision, are working together to develop an arrangement where interests granted prior to the High Court decision are able to continue, and the Indigenous groups are able to exercise and enjoy their rights.

After that, where necessary, legislative change are needed to reverse the narrowing and constraining of native title that has taken place from the Wik amendments in 1998 and through the High Court decisions in Yorta Yorta76 and Ward.77 These matters are considered later in this report in the chapter on significant court decisCourt decisions in Yorta Yorta76 and Ward.77 These matters are considered later in this report in the chapter on significant court deciscourt decisions.

A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co. tackled an interesting related issue: Does this prohibition also cover those scenarios where the borrower gets a lower - interest rate «discount» while he or she is not in default, as compared to the higher rate payable if the loan goes into default?

The units, strategically placed within the highest traffic area of each mall, mainly the food court area, reach more than 17.5 million consumers per month at the point of sale, where 70 % of buying decisions are made.