Example sentences of "person [adj] [subord] [art] [noun sg] [pron] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | ( 7 ) For the purpose of attending and voting at meetings a member of a recognised body shall not appoint as a proxy or corporate representative any person other than a solicitor who is a member or officer of or who is working in the practice of , or a registered foreign lawyer who is a member or director of , ( a ) the recognised body or ( b ) a recognised body which is itself a member of the recognised body . |
| 2 | ( 7 ) For the purpose of attending and voting at meetings a member of a recognised body shall not appoint as proxy or corporate representative any person other than a solicitor who is a member or officer of or who is working in the practice of , or a registered foreign lawyer who is a member or director of , ( a ) the recognised body or ( b ) a recognised body which is itself a member of the recognised body . |
| 3 | By a notice of appeal dated 6 September 1991 the solicitors appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) under section 6(2) of the Act of 1986 the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of section 3 of the Act to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell and ( b ) under section 61(1) of the Act the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of any rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell ; ( 2 ) the court had no jurisdiction under sections 6(2) and 61(1) to award claims for compensation for loss against persons knowingly concerned in such contraventions in contrast to sections 6(3) to ( 7 ) and sections 61(3) to ( 7 ) ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) the power of the court under section 6(2) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court might direct for restoring the parties to the transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into and ( b ) the power of the court under section 61(1) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention of the rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to take such steps as the court might direct to remedy it included power to make a financial award against such person directing payment by that person to individual investors of sums equivalent to the amounts paid by such investors pursuant to the said transaction , neither subsection empowering the court to order restitution by the repayment of moneys outside the possession or control of the person concerned ; and ( 4 ) the judge erred in law ( a ) in his construction of sections 6(2) and 61(1) in failing to have regard to the principle ‘ generalibus specialia derogant , ’ in particular in holding that there could exist within each of sections 6 and 61 two parallel powers to order financial redress at the suit of the plaintiff , one derived from sections 6(3) and 6(4) and sections 61(3) and 61(4) respectively , which was subject to the limitations set out in those and subsequent subsections , and the other derived from section 6(2) and section 61(1) , which was subject to no such limitations ; ( b ) in rejecting the submission that sections 6 and 61 were essentially procedural and did not create new substantive legal rights and remedies ; and ( c ) in failing to have regard to the fact that the orders sought under paragraphs 11 and 13 of the prayer to the amended statement of claim required payment to the plaintiff or alternatively into court of moneys recovered thereunder from the solicitors despite the absence of any provisions for such orders in the Act , his dismissal of the summons being inconsistent with his finding that there was no provision in sections 6(2) or 61(1) directing payment into court and that any order under the sections would have to direct repayment of the sum paid to each individual investor who had made the original payment . |
| 4 | By a notice of appeal dated 6 September 1991 the solicitors appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) under section 6(2) of the Act of 1986 the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of section 3 of the Act to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell and ( b ) under section 61(1) of the Act the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of any rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell ; ( 2 ) the court had no jurisdiction under sections 6(2) and 61(1) to award claims for compensation for loss against persons knowingly concerned in such contraventions in contrast to sections 6(3) to ( 7 ) and sections 61(3) to ( 7 ) ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) the power of the court under section 6(2) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court might direct for restoring the parties to the transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into and ( b ) the power of the court under section 61(1) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention of the rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to take such steps as the court might direct to remedy it included power to make a financial award against such person directing payment by that person to individual investors of sums equivalent to the amounts paid by such investors pursuant to the said transaction , neither subsection empowering the court to order restitution by the repayment of moneys outside the possession or control of the person concerned ; and ( 4 ) the judge erred in law ( a ) in his construction of sections 6(2) and 61(1) in failing to have regard to the principle ‘ generalibus specialia derogant , ’ in particular in holding that there could exist within each of sections 6 and 61 two parallel powers to order financial redress at the suit of the plaintiff , one derived from sections 6(3) and 6(4) and sections 61(3) and 61(4) respectively , which was subject to the limitations set out in those and subsequent subsections , and the other derived from section 6(2) and section 61(1) , which was subject to no such limitations ; ( b ) in rejecting the submission that sections 6 and 61 were essentially procedural and did not create new substantive legal rights and remedies ; and ( c ) in failing to have regard to the fact that the orders sought under paragraphs 11 and 13 of the prayer to the amended statement of claim required payment to the plaintiff or alternatively into court of moneys recovered thereunder from the solicitors despite the absence of any provisions for such orders in the Act , his dismissal of the summons being inconsistent with his finding that there was no provision in sections 6(2) or 61(1) directing payment into court and that any order under the sections would have to direct repayment of the sum paid to each individual investor who had made the original payment . |
| 5 | The surveyor accepts responsibility to the client alone for the stated purposes that the report will be prepared with the skill , care and diligence reasonably to be expected of a competent chartered surveyor , but accepts no responsibility whatsoever to any person other than the client himself . |