Example sentences of "the plaintiffs ' [noun] [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | 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 . ’ |
| 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 | From this analysis of the statement of claim it is clear that all the plaintiffs ' claims against the third defendant are based upon allegations of fraud of one kind or another and that no relief is claimed on any basis which does not involve fraud . |
| 4 | Nield , J , was unable so to hold for two reasons — ( 1 ) since the Counter-Inflationary Order made under the powers of the Act preserved the lease as lawful and valid though prohibiting payment of rent above the standard rate , and ( 2 ) since even if it had been otherwise the plaintiffs ' contract for payment for professional services was not an agreement collateral to the lease so as to be tainted by any illegality in the lease if such illegality had existed . |
| 5 | ‘ 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 . |
| 6 | 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 . |
| 7 | 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 . |
| 8 | 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 . |
| 9 | A Federal judge refused the plaintiffs ' request for a restraining order to open the late April pre-session meeting , saying they failed to demonstrate that real deliberations and decision making were taking place . |
| 10 | The point was that the plaintiffs ' interest in Jarrad exceeded their interest in Jesner , and they contended that the object of Jarrad had been to provide money for the family and not to have its assets syphoned off to prop up Jesner . |
| 11 | The plaintiffs ' loss of business was pecuniary or economic damage . |
| 12 | 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 . |
| 13 | High Court judge , Sir Nicholas Browne-Wilkinson V- C , was not concerned about ‘ a detailed analysis of much conflicting evidence or documentation ’ , because at this stage there was only a preliminary question of whether or not the plaintiffs ' statement of claim should be struck out . |
| 14 | I respectfully agree with his reasons for rejecting the plaintiffs ' claim for the inspection of documents and disclosure of information before trial based upon section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 , upon the alleged proprietary claim and upon waiver . |
| 15 | In order to understand the nature of the application it is necessary first to consider the plaintiffs ' claim against the third defendant . |
| 16 | ‘ 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 . |
| 17 | He contended that , as the plaintiffs ' claim against the third defendant is based exclusively on conspiracy and fraud , the third defendant will only be held liable to the plaintiffs if he is found guilty of serious dishonesty . |
| 18 | However , as I understand it , the plaintiffs ' claim against the third defendant goes well beyond a claim to recover the benefits actually obtained by conspiracy or fraud . |
| 19 | The plaintiffs ' claim in these proceedings is based on allegations of a complicated fraud said to have been perpetrated by the first defendant Mr. Tully in conspiracy with his wife the second defendant , Mrs. Tully and with all or some of the other first 16 defendants . |
| 20 | It does not matter that the plaintiffs ' cause of action against the third defendant arises from conspiracy or fraud whereas their cause of action against the third party arises from breach of a contractual or tortious duty of care . |
| 21 | 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 : |
| 22 | The Bank of England was granted leave to intervene in the plaintiffs ' action on 7 May 1991 . |
| 23 | The plaintiffs ' contentions under this heading do not seek to cut down or erode or encroach upon the privilege against self-incrimination . |
| 24 | In his judgment in the instant case Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. summarised the plaintiffs ' argument in this way [ 1992 ] 1 Q.B . |
| 25 | 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 |