Example sentences of "see [noun prp] v. " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | In practice processions appear to have a favoured place providing there is no actual obstruction , that they are peaceful and that police directions are observed ( see Hirst v. Chief Constable of West Yorks ( C.A. , 1986 ) ) . |
| 2 | See Stewart v. Dunphy , 1980 S.L.T. ( Notes ) 93 in which it was decided such persons were guilty of an offence . |
| 3 | See Mountford v. Scott , above , P.79 , Centrovincial Estates plc v. Merchant Investors , above , p. 115 , Thomas v. Thomas above , p. 198 . |
| 4 | It would , I consider , be wrong to read it as requiring that in every case where a witness is shown to have made a previous statement inconsistent with his evidence at the trial , the jury should be directed that such evidence should be regarded as unreliable : see Driscoll v. The Queen ( 1977 ) 51 A.L.J.R. 731 , 740 , per Gibbs J. , with whom Barwick C.J. agreed , at p. 734 . |
| 5 | Misrepresentation or undue influence for which the debtor is responsible will not , unless the creditor had knowledge of what had happened , or unless the creditor was , via agency or some like route , a party to what had happened , prejudice the enforceability by the creditor of the security given by the surety : see Bainbrigge v. Browne , 18 Ch.D. 188 ; Mutual Finance Ltd. v. John Wetton & Sons Ltd. [ 1937 ] 2 K.B . |
| 6 | As to the extent of the structural alterations which the licensing board may order under this subsection. see Bushell v. Hammond [ 1904 ] 2 K.B . |
| 7 | A power for nobody to determine or for one party only to be able to determine is inconsistent with the concept of a term from year to year : see Warner v. Browne , 8 East 165 and Cheshire Lines Committee v. Lewis & Co . , |
| 8 | The owners might have claimed damages in arbitration against the yard with all the inherent unavoidable uncertainties of litigation , but in view of the position of the owners vis-d-vis their relations with Shell it would be unreasonable to hold that this is the course they should have taken : see Astley v. Reynolds ( 1731 ) 2 Str. 915 . |
| 9 | The mortgagor had no express contractual obligation to pay them : see Sinfield v. Sweet [ 1967 ] 1 W.L.R. 1489 . |
| 10 | See Maharaj v. Chand [ 1986 ] 3 All E.R. |
| 11 | The rule of law which seems to have evolved , or at least to be evolving , is that ‘ a failure to comply with the requirements of Ord. 29 , r. 1(5) of the County Court Rules 1981 is fatal to the lawfulness of the committal ’ ( see Howes v. Howes , 142 N.L.J. 753 ) and that in contempt cases the court 's powers under section 13(3) of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 will be used only in exceptional cases . |
| 12 | Unless he does , the right to make representations is of little value : see Kanda v. Government of the Federation of Malaya [ 1962 ] A.C. 332 , 337 . |
| 13 | It was not at once noted that a corporation may by its agents commit , or counsel or procure , the commission of criminal offences as has since been established : see Rex v. I.C.R. Haulage Ltd. [ 1944 ] K.B . |
| 14 | Thus , the court has by mandamus required a visitor to exercise his jurisdiction : see Rex v. Bishop of Ely ( 1794 ) 5 Durn. & E. 475 and Rex v. Dunsheath , Ex parte Meredith [ 1951 ] 1 K.B . |
| 15 | For the rather wide definition of " uniform " see O'Moran v. D.P.P. |
| 16 | ( 1 ) ) , see Bury v. Kilmarnock and Loudon District Licensing Board , 1989 S.L.T. 110 . |
| 17 | 275 tons of barley to be grown by the seller ( see Sainsbury v. Street ( 1972 ) Assizes ) ) ; |
| 18 | On the other hand major defects in a second-hand car might well mean that it is not of merchantable quality ( see Crowther v. Shannon paragraph 7–19 below ) . |
| 19 | In cases where the discharge of a duty imposed by law has been treated as valid consideration , the courts have usually ( but not invariably ) found an act over and above , but consistent with , the duty imposed by law : see Williams v. Williams , ( above , p. 218 ) . |
| 20 | The buyer can include in his claim for damages , the amount of the damages he has had to pay out to his sub-purchaser for breach of contract , see Godley v. Perry ( paragraph 9–05 above ) . |
| 21 | In cases of contempt , however , these powers will be used only in exceptional cases : see Linkleter v. Linkleter [ 1988 ] 1 F.L.R. 360 . |
| 22 | Although the petitioner was , for the reasons indicated , entitled to appeal as of right , the present petition by the petitioner is of necessity a petition for the grant of special leave to appeal and the grant of such leave remains discretionary : see Lopes v. Valliappa Chettiar [ 1968 ] A.C. 887 . |
| 23 | But it is well established by authority of this House ( see Atkinson v. United States of America Government [ 1971 ] A.C. 197 , and Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison , Ex parte Kotronis [ 1971 ] A.C. 250 ) that , until the enactment of section 11(3) of the Act of 1989 , no such discretion was vested in the English courts in extradition matters , the relevant discretion being vested in the Secretary of State : see Ex parte Sinclair [ 1991 ] 2 A.C. 64 , 80–81 , per Lord Ackner . |
| 24 | Further , it is always open to a court , on proof of new facts , to make an order supplemental to an original order : see Ford-Hunt v. Raghbir Singh [ 1973 ] 1 W.L.R. 738 , 740 , per Brightman J. The affidavit evidence before Saville J. gave him an incomplete picture of the actual situation in Somalia and the current attitude of Her Majesty 's Government ; there is now additional relevant evidence before the court . |
| 25 | See Khan v. City of Glasgow District Licensing Board , 1980 S.L.T. ( Sh.Ct. ) 49 for consideration of the same or similar facilities in the locality . |
| 26 | In such a case the subordinate legislation may be used in order to construe the parent Act : see Hanlon v. The Law Society [ 1981 ] A.C. 124 , 193 , per Lord Lowry . |
| 27 | Where the question before the court relates to the upbringing of the child this principle is given statutory form by section 1(1) ( a ) of the Act of 1989 , but the test would now be the same even without the intervention of statute : see J. v. C. [ 1970 ] A.C. 668 , 697 , 724 ; In re B. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Sterilisation ) [ 1988 ] A.C. 199 , 202 , 212 . |
| 28 | For an English decision , see Schofield v. Jones [ 1955 ] 1 W.L.R. 1133 . |
| 29 | Extreme circumstances may arise when it could be right so to hold : see Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co . |
| 30 | Minor defects must , for example , be expected to materialise in a second-hand car ( see Bartlett v. Sydney Marcus above ) . |