Example sentences of "[prep] the plaintiffs ' [noun] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The plaintiffs claim damages from a number of defendants , including the third defendant , under the following heads : ( 1 ) general damages for conspiracy ; ( 2 ) exemplary damages on the basis that the acts complained of were calculated to make a profit for the conspirators or their companies and constituted a cynical disregard for the plaintiffs ' rights ; and ( 3 ) damages for deceit as an alternative to damages for conspiracy . |
| 2 | And , while the general right of beneficiaries to inspect trust documents was recognised in In re Londonderry 's Settlement [ 1965 ] Ch. 918 as being a proprietary right , that case does not provide support for the plaintiffs ' contention in the instant appeal . |
| 3 | This can be demonstrated in Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals [ 1971 ] 1 QB 88 where a chemical supplied by the defendants , although fit for the plaintiffs ' purposes , exploded on contact with water , though this was unknown to the plaintiffs . |
| 4 | By a notice of appeal dated 18 February 1991 the second defendant appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that the judge erred ( 1 ) in concluding that the first defendant was not acting as the plaintiffs ' agent when he procured the signature of the second defendant to the legal charge dated 3 July 1987 ; and ( 2 ) in not finding that the execution of the charge was procured by the undue influence and material misrepresentation of the first defendant and thereby in not setting aside the charge . |
| 5 | The [ defendants ] whether by [ themselves , their ] servants or agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained until trial or further order from : ( a ) delivering up or disclosing to the grand jury in the County of New York empanelled in the matter of the People of the State of New York v. John Doe ( B Bank ) or , without the prior consent of the plaintiffs , delivering up or disclosing to any third party otherwise than in connection with and for the purposes of the business and trading of the plaintiffs or any of them , all documents and information contained therein held by [ these defendants ] at [ their ] branches in London or elsewhere within this jurisdiction concerning or relating to the plaintiffs ' accounts with the [ defendants ] or any of them or otherwise relating to the business of the plaintiffs or any of them ; ( b ) without the prior written consent of the plaintiffs ' solicitors herein , removing from the jurisdiction of this court any of the documents referred to in subclause ( a ) hereof or any copies thereof . |
| 6 | ‘ The third defendant denies the plaintiffs ' claim against him but if contrary to his contentions he is held liable to the plaintiffs , he claims against you to be indemnified against the plaintiffs ' claims and the costs of this action , alternatively contribution to such extent of the plaintiffs ' claims as the court may think fit , on the grounds that ( 1 ) at all material times , you were the accountants retained by and advising the plaintiffs and each of them in respect of the proposed transaction ( and in particular the financial aspects thereof ) in relation to which the said alleged liability of the plaintiffs and each of them to [ B.M.T. ] was incurred ; ( 2 ) in about the period from January to September 1983 , you acted in breach of contract and negligently towards the plaintiffs and each of them in that you failed to advise them properly or at all with regard to the said proposed transaction and the financial aspects thereof and in particular failed to explain the full nature and extent thereof to the plaintiffs and each of them and/or failed to advise the plaintiffs as to the commercial prudence of the same and/or the risks inherent in proceeding with the same and/or failed to warn them not to enter into the same ; ( 3 ) that in so far as any financial information was or may have been communicated by the third defendant he did so in reliance upon information supplied by you . |
| 7 | ‘ I am concerned that if I now have to respond fully to that part of the plaintiffs ' order of 5 June dealing with the various alleged payments my position vis-à-vis the police investigation may well be prejudiced . |
| 8 | The Crown Prosecution Service were informed of Buckley J. 's order and of the plaintiffs ' intention to appeal from the decision of Wright J. , and were asked whether they wished to intervene or make representations in the appeal . |
| 9 | On 13 October 1988 an order was made by Master Munrow directing the trial as a preliminary issue of certain questions arising out of the plaintiffs ' notice of objection . |
| 10 | There was no evidence that the employees had misused any of the plaintiffs ' business secrets . |
| 11 | Moreover he found that a concession made in the pleadings to the effect that the plaintiffs did not allege that the defendants had made use of any of the plaintiffs ' trade secrets since leaving their employment was , in the light of the judgment of Faccenda Chicken Ltd v Fowler [ 1986 ] 1 All ER 617 fatal . |
| 12 | The restriction has to be justified in this case as being reasonably required for the protection of the plaintiffs ' trade secrets by preventing the defendant from disclosing confidential information imparted to him by the plaintiffs in the course of his employment … |
| 13 | Held , dismissing the appeal , that the liability imposed under section 1(1) of the Act of 1978 was intended by Parliament , by virtue of section 6(1) of the Act , to enable claims for contribution to be made as between parties who had no claim for contribution under the general law , and applied whenever a plaintiff had a cause of action against a third party in respect of the same damage as gave rise to his cause of action against the defendant , irrespective of the legal basis of the liability ; and that , accordingly , the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio could not be relied upon in answer to a claim for contribution under the Act ; and that , since there was sufficient possibility of the third party being found liable for some part of the plaintiffs ' loss , there were no grounds for striking out the third party notice ( post , pp. 1022H — 1023A , G–H , 1024G — 1025D ) . |
| 14 | ‘ The third defendant denies the plaintiffs ' claim against him but if contrary to his contentions he is held liable to the plaintiffs , he claims against you to be indemnified against the plaintiffs ' claims and the costs of this action , alternatively contribution to such extent of the plaintiffs ' claims as the court may think fit , on the grounds that ( 1 ) at all material times , you were the accountants retained by and advising the plaintiffs and each of them in respect of the proposed transaction ( and in particular the financial aspects thereof ) in relation to which the said alleged liability of the plaintiffs and each of them to [ B.M.T. ] was incurred ; ( 2 ) in about the period from January to September 1983 , you acted in breach of contract and negligently towards the plaintiffs and each of them in that you failed to advise them properly or at all with regard to the said proposed transaction and the financial aspects thereof and in particular failed to explain the full nature and extent thereof to the plaintiffs and each of them and/or failed to advise the plaintiffs as to the commercial prudence of the same and/or the risks inherent in proceeding with the same and/or failed to warn them not to enter into the same ; ( 3 ) that in so far as any financial information was or may have been communicated by the third defendant he did so in reliance upon information supplied by you . |
| 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 | In Marshall ( Thomas ) ( Exporters ) Ltd v Guinle [ 1978 ] 3 WLR 116 whilst managing director of the plaintiffs and without their knowledge or consent , the defendant placed orders for the benefit of himself and his own company with the plaintiffs ' suppliers . |
| 17 | In my judgment , he would inevitably have come to the conclusion , as a matter of necessary inference , that the plaintiffs were paying and the defendants accepting the money subject to repayment if the action resulted in the plaintiffs ' favour . |
| 18 | But the principal credit goes to our legal team for identifying at the outset the essential weakness in the plaintiffs ' case . |
| 19 | The Bank of England was granted leave to intervene in the plaintiffs ' action on 7 May 1991 . |
| 20 | In the plaintiffs ' opinion this seriously affected their privacy and thus breached the covenant of " non-derogation from grant " , since the ground-floor had been let as a dwelling house . |
| 21 | The fallacy in the plaintiffs ' argument lay in the assertion that the challenged paragraphs of the order of Buckley J. constituted a proprietary remedy and not a mere order for discovery . |
| 22 | The defendants had both received training in the plaintiffs ' business , including familiarisation with the contents of two manuals . |
| 23 | Holmes J. recognised that it might not be possible to establish the forfeiture without quo warranto but considered that even before or until such a proceeding the effect of the clause upon the plaintiffs ' business could be serious , and ( 2 ) the incurring of a penalty which would continue to accrue and accumulate pending litigation should the plaintiffs ultimately fail . |
| 24 | The 14 March 1988 order recorded that accounts had already been supplied to the plaintiffs and that those accounts had discharged the first defendant 's accounting obligations ‘ subject only to the plaintiffs ' rights under Ord. 43 , r. 5 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1965 and their rights to require vouching of the said accounts . ’ |
| 25 | The terms in which it expressed this decision are to be found in a letter dated 23 October 1991 addressed to the plaintiffs ' solicitors and written by Mr. A. D. Farries , a principal in the Crown Prosecutor Fraud Investigation Group . |
| 26 | The plaintiffs , A and others , who were customers of the defendants , obtained an injunction before Morland J. on 13 August 1990 restraining the defendants from delivering up or disclosing to the United States court or to third parties otherwise than in connection with and for the purposes of the business and trading of the plaintiffs , any documents relating to the plaintiffs ' accounts with the defendants , and ordering the latter to return to its London branch certain documents which had been removed from the jurisdiction . |
| 27 | The [ defendants ] whether by [ themselves , their ] servants or agents or otherwise howsoever be restrained until trial or further order from : ( a ) delivering up or disclosing to the grand jury in the County of New York empanelled in the matter of the People of the State of New York v. John Doe ( B Bank ) or , without the prior consent of the plaintiffs , delivering up or disclosing to any third party otherwise than in connection with and for the purposes of the business and trading of the plaintiffs or any of them , all documents and information contained therein held by [ these defendants ] at [ their ] branches in London or elsewhere within this jurisdiction concerning or relating to the plaintiffs ' accounts with the [ defendants ] or any of them or otherwise relating to the business of the plaintiffs or any of them ; ( b ) without the prior written consent of the plaintiffs ' solicitors herein , removing from the jurisdiction of this court any of the documents referred to in subclause ( a ) hereof or any copies thereof . |
| 28 | Roskill J said that B was in breach of an implied duty in : ( a ) not communicating to the plaintiffs ' board the information which he received from the patent agents and in taking no steps to protect the plaintiffs against possible consequences of the existence of the patent ; and ( b ) using information regarding the patent for his own benefit . |
| 29 | Owing to a rainfall of extraordinary violence , the stream overflowed at the pond , and a great volume of water , which would normally have been carried off by the stream , poured down a public street into the town and caused damage to the plaintiffs ' property . |
| 30 | The circumstances of the breach ( which followed a previous less significant breach ) were drawn to the plaintiffs ' attention by the defendants ' solicitors by letter dated 30 April 1991 as follows : |