Example sentences of "the defendants ' [noun] [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The defendants ' conduct in subsequently honouring the advertisement was irrelevant as it occurred after the offence had been committed . |
| 2 | 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 . |
| 3 | The plaintiff was a guest at the defendants ' hotel in London . |
| 4 | 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 |
| 5 | Wright J. set aside paragraphs 18(a) and ( c ) and 19(a) and ( c ) of the order dated 5 June 1991 on the grounds that they infringe the defendants ' privilege against self-incrimination . |
| 6 | 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 . |
| 7 | 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 : |
| 8 | APPEAL ( No. 6 of 1991 ) with leave of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda by the plaintiff , Horace Brenton Kelly , from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda ( Blair-Kerr P. , Roberts and Henry JJ.A. ) given on 30 November 1989 allowing an appeal by the defendants , Margot Cooper and Helen Cooper ( trading as Cooper Associates , a firm ) from the judgment of Hull J. delivered on 14 November 1988 in the Supreme Court of Bermuda ( Civil Jurisdiction ) , whereby he awarded the plaintiff $200,000 damages for breach of contract and made a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to commission on the sale of the plaintiff 's property , and the defendants ' counterclaim for commission was dismissed . |
| 9 | This is an appeal from a judgment dated 30 November 1989 of the Court of Appeal of Bermuda ( Blair-Kerr P. , Roberts and Henry JJ.A. ) allowing an appeal from a judgment of Hull J. dated 14 November 1988 of the Supreme Court of Bermuda ( Civil Jurisdiction ) awarding the plaintiff , Mr. Kelly , damages in the sum of $200,000 , declaring that the defendants , a firm of estate agents trading as Cooper Associates , were not entitled to commission on the sale of the plaintiff 's property , Caliban , and dismissing the defendants ' counterclaim for such commission . |
| 10 | 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 . |
| 11 | One reason for excessive caution on the part of magistrates when dealing with bail applications in the past was the lack of adequate information about defendants , their home circumstances , or the circumstances in which their offence had been committed — information which can help the court assess the defendants ' chances of absconding or re-offending while on bail . |
| 12 | 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 . |
| 13 | On the plaintiffs ' appeal and the defendants ' cross-appeal on the ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to object to the amount of any costs in the accounts unless the court had deprived the defendants of the relevant costs : — |
| 14 | In Geo Mitchell ( Chesterhall ) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd [ 1983 ] 2 AC 803 it was held that the defendants ' limitation of liability was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable under the Act ; a decisive factor was that in previous cases the defendants had settled claims without seeking to rely on the limitation clause , impliedly recognising that it was not reasonable . |
| 15 | On the defendants ' application for directions as to whether they were at liberty to comply with the Bank of England 's notice notwithstanding the terms of the injunction , or alternatively for variation or discharge of the injunction so as to permit such compliance : — |
| 16 | The fence was erected in order to reinforce a fence which had already been put there by the defendants ' predecessor in title , and it did not in any event enclose the disputed land … |
| 17 | I can well understand the plaintiffs ' sense of indignation at the defendants ' breaches of the injunction , and the court will have to consider very carefully all aspects of those breaches when the inevitable contempt proceedings are heard . |
| 18 | Held , ( 1 ) that the order for disclosure was not an order made in a proprietary claim so as to defeat the defendants ' claim to privilege against self-incrimination , nor was it a claim relating to infringement of rights pertaining to commercial information within section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 ( post , pp. 351A–B , 352A , 355B , B–C , 360A , G–H , 361D–F ) . |
| 19 | The actions were consolidated , the plaintiff 's action standing as the claim , the defendants ' claim for the commission being the counterclaim . |
| 20 | 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 . |
| 21 | During the litigation orders were made for certain of the defendants ' costs to be taxed on a standard basis . |
| 22 | On the third party 's appeal , on the question whether assuming the defendants ' illegality to be proved , the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio precluded a claim for contribution under the Act of 1978 : — |
| 23 | Following the recent decision in Sutcliffe v Thackrah [ 1974 ] 1 AC 727 , which had decided that a certifier under a building contract did not have arbitral immunity , the issue in Arenson was whether the defendants ' valuation of shares was an arbitration . |
| 24 | 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 . |