Example sentences of "[prep] the defendants ' [noun] " in BNC.

  Next page
No Sentence
1 The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs ' appeal from Wright J. 's order , holding that it was not open to the court to devise protection in substitution for the defendants ' privilege against self-incrimination , and that the plaintiffs ' claim was neither proprietary nor within section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981
2 The order was not one for the recovery or preservation of trust property but called for information and for copies of the defendants ' documents which , so far as compliance might incriminate them , the defendants were entitled to disregard .
3 The Court of Appeal dismissed the first and second defendants ' appeal against Mr Justice Vinelott 's order that the defendants permit the plaintiff 's solicitors to inspect and take copies of an affidavit in the possession of the defendants ' solicitors .
4 The wife was entitled to compensation for her vexation , anxiety and stress which were the direct and foreseeable result of the defendants ' negligence .
5 This submission is the kernel of the defendants ' case .
6 In the light of the defendants ' knowledge of her state of health it was reasonably foreseeable that that would happen if they were negligent and did not obtain a satisfactory resolution of her affairs .
7 During the litigation orders were made for certain of the defendants ' costs to be taxed on a standard basis .
8 Since the termination of the defendants ' employment a company in the same group as the plaintiffs had opened a number of Bureaux de Change in Paris .
9 The plaintiffs contended that their business plan was confidential , that the items of information relied upon were sufficiently confidential to be protectable after termination of the defendants ' employment and that it could be inferred that the defendants had used those items by virtue of alleged similarity between figures appearing in the respective business plans .
10 The essence of the defendants ' argument is the alleged identity , in all respects , and for every purpose , between the defendants and the company .
11 The fracture was caused during the construction of a storm sewer , involving underground work beneath the defendants ' mains , by a third party .
12 Affidavits from the defendants ' solicitors established that the photocopy affidavit was supplied to them by the second defendant for the purposes of seeking legal advice in circumstances where litigation was contemplated , but did not indicate whether the photocopy sent was a photocopy which the second defendant made for the purpose of instructing his solicitors or a photocopy which had been sent to the second defendant by the employee himself , prepared for the employee 's own purposes which had nothing whatever to do with the defendants obtaining legal advice from their soliticors .
13 Your Lordships are invited to construe that benevolently in the defendants ' favour as a claim to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination on the ground that the order called upon him to disclose material which might be used in furtherance of criminal proceedings against him .
14 The risk involved in the defendants ' operations was so great that a high degree of care was expected of them .
15 The third defendant issued a third party notice against the plaintiffs ' accountant claiming an indemnity or contribution in the event of the third defendant being held liable to the plaintiffs , on the ground that the accountant had negligently failed to warn the plaintiffs of the risks inherent in the defendants ' transactions .
16 Subsequently , in an unrelated claim by the plaintiff bank against the defendants , the bank sought discovery of the copy of the employee 's affidavit in the defendants ' solicitors ' possession .
17 where the plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Supply as an inspector of munitions in the defendants ' munitions factory and , in the course of her employment there was injured by the explosion of a shell that was being manufactured .
18 I think that I must assume the existence of some person in the defendants ' employment who accepted and appropriated the money with a full knowledge of all the facts , particularly the discussion which had preceded the institution of the action , and the pending of the action itself , who knew and realised that the right of the defendants to receive the money was at the moment sub judice , and indeed on the point of coming before this court for decision .
19 The plaintiffs relied upon the defendants ' report and as a result lost some £17 000 in monies owed by E on advertising contracts when E went into liquidation .
20 Both the defendants and the Bank of England , while not expressly acknowledging the link , invite the court to proceed for present purposes on the assumption that without the defendants ' breach the Bank of England would not have issued the section 39 notice in its present form .
21 It was also stated that a ‘ scam ’ had been running for quite some time prior to the defendants ' involvement .
22 By a respondent 's notice dated 1 July 1991 the first defendant cross-appealed , seeking an order that on the taking of accounts and inquiry ordered to be taken by Chief Master Munrow on 14 March 1988 , the plaintiffs were not entitled to raise an objection to the defendants ' accounts on the ground that the items were unreasonable in amount unless the court had deprived the first defendant as mortgagee of relevant costs .
23 ‘ Whether … ( c ) the plaintiffs are entitled … to raise an objection to the defendants ' accounts … of the nature … specified in objection number 1 … namely , that the items were unreasonable in amount …
24 The second defendant was sent a photocopy of the affidavit and he sent it to the defendants ' solicitors for advice in the context of the wrongful dismissal claim .
25 On the facts the court had no clear evidence that the copy sent to the defendants ' solicitors was made by or on behalf of the second defendant .
26 It is obviously irrelevant to speculate on what if anything was in the mind of the clerk or other subordinate officer who actually received the money , or in the mind of the officer ( whoever he or she may have been ) who paid it into the bank to the defendants ' credit .
27 According to the defendants ' version of events , a women had approached Khmara for help , claiming that a man had attacked her ; Khmara and his companions then tried to make a citizen 's arrest on the man , unaware that he was a KGB officer .
28 As to the defendants ' claim for commission , even if a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants had been proved , they would not thereby have lost their right to commission unless they had acted dishonestly .
29 Bingham LJ said that " the plaintiffs did not do what was necessary to draw this unreasonable and extortionate clause " to the defendants ' attention .
30 ‘ Furtherance ’ was to be tested objectively by the courts as well as subjectively by reference to the defendants ' intentions .
  Next page