Example sentences of "in [art] defendant " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | 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 . |
| 2 | When we hear of dramatic changes in the defendants ’ status , from City supremos to detainees of Her Majesty , are n't our reactions caused by our notions of status ? |
| 3 | 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 . |
| 4 | 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 . |
| 5 | ‘ Declare : ( 1 ) That on the taking of the accounts and inquiry order to be made and taken herein by Chief Master Munrow on 14 March 1988 the plaintiffs are entitled to raise objection to items in the defendants ' said accounts on the grounds that the items were and are unreasonable in amount but so that any doubts are to be resolved in favour of the defendants . |
| 6 | 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 . |
| 7 | 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 . |
| 8 | The risk involved in the defendants ' operations was so great that a high degree of care was expected of them . |
| 9 | The requirement effect on trade which member states of jurisdiction requirement , it is jurisdictionable because it is the first task that the commissioner of the court should undertake when considering quote from wind surfing get in constant and the concept and agreement which may effect trade is intended to define in the law governing cartels the boundary between the areas , respectively covered by community law and national law , it is not necessary law for the competition effected by the alleged restriction and the trade which is effected between members of states to be the same , an example in the defendants list of authorities it 's in the principal and in that case the restriction of competition arose in relation to a product possible spirits which was itself used to manufacture other products namely cognac , it was argued that the that since there was no trade between members of state and possible spirits there could be no effect upon trade between member of states and so twenty five could not apply , the court accepted that factual premise , there is no trade between member of state and import of spirits , but rejected the legal conclusion , they concluded that is was necessary for there to be an effect upon trade in the market where the restrictions occurred , they was trading another product which was related to possible spirits , and of course stated , it must be observed in that respect that any agreement who 's object to effect is to a strict competition by fixing minimum prices for an intermediate product is capable of effecting intro community trade , even if there is no trading in that intermediate product between members of state , that the product constitutes the raw material of another project marketing elsewhere |
| 10 | Now it seems to me with erm with great respect from the view of the taxing officer , that er it 's quite clear that er both parties were holding han were holding their hands in relation to a question of taxation because negotiations were going on between the parties and indeed the defendants were being requested er not to proceed with taxation but to see if they could obtain an overall assessment and the point was met to the defendants barrister , telling quite frankly there would n't be much advantage in the defendants pushing on with erm taxation because they 'd only , they would have to look to his interest in the property to get payment , it seems to me in those circumstances that it can not be said that erm the plaintiffs were in any way acting improperly and not seeking to have the costs taxed during the period while the negotiations were being carried on er because effectively and |
| 11 | Mr replied that is what Mr was asking the other to do , that is to hold their hand and to enter into negotiations , now I fully appreciate that erm doctor feels strongly that the defendants have not been negotiating in good faith and have been simply dragging matters out for his benefit , now when I say that I 'm simply saying what I understand to be doctor view , I 'm certainly not suggesting that I 'm finding as a fact , but that was the decision , indeed I could n't cos I 've not heard all the evidence on this matter not as Mr to address me on that one , it seems to me with all respect to doctor missions on this matter that if there has been any dragging of feet or other improper conduct of either the defendants in connection with er they remain on in the premises and not paying what doctor would consider to be a full and proper rent or if there has been problem about their not disclosing documents when they should have done , the position is that doctor has er by making an appropriate application to the court , for maybe the appropriate relief arising out of the facts which he can establish , but that is not in general a matter which erm the court should go into on the question of taxation , it 's not , th this particular taxation of costs is a taxation as I understand it that are formally to the debt of the order of Mr Justice and there is thus no question of the court having to consider the question when the those tax those costs have been swollen or increased in any way by reason of spinning out negotiations whether to run up costs or otherwise , that simply does n't arising it seems to me in this case that maybe a matter which may arise possibly at some future date , though I would hope it would not do so , but er so far as the costs down to the end of the trial of the twentieth of March nineteen ninety one are concerned , it seems to me the fact that the parties maybe negotiating subsequently to deter to rece to resolve the outstanding issue , it 's not a matter which really goes to the question of erm what is the proper amount to allow for taxation of costs which have already been incurred , before these negotiations erm we do n't the figure of the costs appears to have been effectively agreed between the solicitors at forty two thousand pounds , the plaintiff solicitors made it quite clear that they were seeking interest , this was clear in apparently of nineteen ninety two , but this held their hand , er it seems to me the reason they held their hand rather than indicate it was because the defendant through his solicitor was asking them to do so and it seems to me that Mr was acting very sensibly in the defendants interest , because if in fact they had gone ahead and taxed their costs there and then the position would simply be that there would of been an award for taxation , in order , there would be a taxation resulting in an order for payment of of some cost probably in the region of forty two thousand pounds and er that order would itself carry interest under the judgements act , it does n't seem to me it can be sensibly said that erm any interest has to be in any way increased by reason of this delay and it seems to me that erm if one looks at order sixty two and twenty eight er certainly under paragraph B two erm there 's a reference there to any additional interest payable under section seventeen because of the failure on the May , erm , it does n't seem to me that the effect of what has in fact incurred , in this case has been , caused any additional interest to be paid and er it seems to me the only best that I can see in the evidence before me to , which would enable the court to erm , conclude that there should be a disallowance of interest would be as I say because the plaintiffs appear not to have perfected the order for the payment of perfectively two years , just over two years , erm it seems to me however that , that on balance probably it simply a matter of oversight and even if it had been perfected it would n't of made as I guess the least bit of difference to the way the negotiations er proceeded and accordingly I take the view that erm there are no grounds for disallowing interest from either the plaintiffs bill of costs or the defendants bill of costs , accordingly erm to allow the defendants appeal in preparation to the disallowance of costs er interest and to dismiss the defendants appeal for application in relation to an additional period , P sixty of course disallowed , I also propose to dismiss the sum of , the appeal by the plaintiffs from the refusal of taxing master to disallow the interest on the defendants bill of costs . |
| 12 | He allows that , despite his claiming to have no consciousness of them , a court may punish a man for his drunken actions , but this is only because it can not be sure of distinguishing in the defendant 's plea ‘ what is real , what counterfeit ’ . |
| 13 | Surely it is possible that a jury might decline to convict of murder a person who intentionally killed under gross provocation , even though they knew that the judge could give a lenient sentence , because they wished to signify the reduction in the defendant 's culpability by using the less stigmatic label of manslaughter . |
| 14 | ( FCA ) of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 6.03 in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1989 and 12 March 1991 sent business letters relating to its investment business without bearing the legend ‘ Authorised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales to carry on investment business ’ contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.02 and in that the firm at Shipley between 9 September 1988 and 1 October 1989 entered or required its Principal to enter into an association or arrangement with a person which might result in the defendant being constrained or induced to refer or introduce a client to a person who was not an independent intermediary with a view to that person giving investment advice contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.03 and in that the firm at Shipley between 16 March 1986 and 31 October 1989 failed before recommending or effecting for a client a transaction in units in an authorised unit trust or a recognised collective investment scheme , to take reasonable steps to establish that other more advantageous or suitable policies or units were not available contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.11 and in that the firm at Shipley between 1 November 1989 and 16 October 1991 having given advice to a client which was such that when acted upon it resulted in commission being received by the defendant , failed to notify the said client in writing of the amount and terms of such commission as soon as that information was available , contrary to Investment Business Regulation 2.32 was reprimanded , fined £3,000 and ordered to pay £500 by way of costs . |
| 15 | These were reproduced in the defendant 's case : |
| 16 | Held , ( 1 ) that section 18(1) and ( 2 ) authorised an order for payment by the board of that part of the costs of the proceedings determined in the defendant 's favour incurred by him personally at any time when he was not receiving legal aid and was thus an unassisted person ; that , accordingly , the House had jurisdiction under the section to order payment by the board of the defendant 's costs incurred before the issue of his legal aid certificate ; and that the appropriate course was to adjourn the defendant 's application under regulation 143 of the Regulations of 1989 for him to pursue his claim in accordance with regulation 147 ( post , pp. 199G , 201A–B , E , H — 202A , 203B–D ) . |
| 17 | But I see no difficulty in reading the language of subsections ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of section 18 as authorising an order for payment by the board ( subject , of course , to the criteria prescribed by subsection ( 4 ) ) of such part of the costs of the proceedings which are eventually determined in the defendant 's favour as were incurred by the defendant personally at any time when he was not receiving legal aid and accordingly fell within the definition of an unassisted party . |
| 18 | Halsey 's case [ 1961 ] 1 W.L.R. 683 , is particularly in point because part of the claim was based on the noise of oil tankers , not just in the defendant 's depot , but as they were driven along the road past the plaintiff 's house : see pp. 700–701 . |
| 19 | The plaintiff also failed in his claim in Rickards v. Lothian where some third person deliberately blocked up the waste-pipe of a lavatory basin in the defendant 's premises , thereby flooding the plaintiff 's premises . |
| 20 | The plaintiff was given a temporary licence to leave her car in the defendant 's yard . |
| 21 | Thus in Cooper v. Wandsworth Board of Works it was held that demolition powers vested in the defendant Board were to be subject to notice and hearing requirements . |
| 22 | It is the risk to public order inherent in the defendant 's words or conduct that represents the harm struck at by the section . |
| 23 | ( d ) Whether the unlawful act was a dangerous one is judged not by the accused 's state of mind , but by a sober and reasonable person in the defendant 's position . |
| 24 | The plaintiff worked in the defendant 's brick kilns . |
| 25 | Furthermore , if the originating process is served late , the court may allow the hearing or pre-trial review to proceed even in the defendant 's absence , or it may adjourn the hearing ( Ord 7 , r 16 ) . |
| 26 | So there are two tests basically ; one the means test — can he afford it or not , and two the interest of justice test — is it in the interest of justice that this person should be legally aided , and any doubt on that is resolved in the defendant 's favour . |
| 27 | Secondly , a change in a defendant 's domestic circumstances — eviction from rented accommodation , dismissal from work , loss of family ties — could well have an adverse effect on the choice of sentence following conviction . |
| 28 | There is no point in a defendant blaming his defective brakes if he was going so fast that nothing could have stopped him , or in blaming a puncture if he was driving on a tyre that was worn down to the canvas . |