Example sentences of "[noun sg] had failed [to-vb] the [adj] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Massive American economic aid had failed to strengthen the French position . |
| 2 | The Guardian of Dec. 29 reported that Wang had " been under a cloud " ever since the police force had failed to control the nationwide pro-democracy demonstrations of April-June 1989 [ see pp. 36587 ; 36640-41 ; 36720-22 ] . |
| 3 | Addressing the Supreme Soviet on Sept. 11 , Ryzhkov admitted that the working group had failed to synthesise the rival plans . |
| 4 | The court had failed to obtain the crucial testimony of four South African policemen due to the absence of an extradition treaty between Namibia and South Africa . |
| 5 | She looked at him blankly , conscious of the anticlimax that had brought her tumbling down from out of the clouds , then she nodded , while making an effort to convey the impression that his kiss had failed to have the slightest effect upon her . |
| 6 | It was obvious from this that all the various reassurances from the state had failed to convince the local residents that uranium prospecting was harmless . |
| 7 | The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities claimed that the Government had failed to acknowledge the overwhelming case for more investment . |
| 8 | An alternative scheme for the provision of advice was proposed and adopted after 10 years of pressure had failed to get the original scheme implemented . |
| 9 | Speaking of Tynagh he said the company had failed to fulfil the only planning obligation required of them : that they leave the place as near as possible to how they found it . |
| 10 | According to Snow , even the rise of modem science and technology had failed to displace the old pattern of training a small elite which characterizes English university education . |
| 11 | By notice of appeal dated 22 April 1992 the father appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that any consideration of the children 's welfare in the context of a judicial discretion under article 13 ( a ) of the Convention was relevant only as a material factor if it met the test of placing the children in an ‘ intolerable situation ’ under article 13 ( b ) ; ( 2 ) the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for welfare laid down by the Convention itself ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that in the context of the exercise of the discretion permitted by article 13 ( a ) the court was limited to a consideration of the nature and quality of the father 's acquiescence ( as found by the Court of Appeal ) ; ( 4 ) in the premises , despite her acknowledgment that the exercise of her discretion had to be seen in the context of the Convention , the judge exercised a discretion based on a welfare test appropriate to wardship proceedings ; ( 5 ) the judge was further in error as a matter of law in not perceiving as the starting point for the exercise of her discretion the proposition that under the Convention the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the state from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 6 ) the judge , having found that on the ability to determine the issue between the parents there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England , was wrong not to conclude that as a consequence the mother had failed to displace the fundamental premise of the Convention that the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the country from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 7 ) the judge also misdirected herself when considering which court should decide the future of the children ( a ) by applying considerations more appropriate to the doctrine of forum conveniens and ( b ) by having regard to the likely outcome of the hearing in that court contrary to the principles set out in In re F. ( A Minor ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 25 ; ( 8 ) in the alternative , if the judge was right to apply the forum conveniens approach , she failed to have regard to the following facts and matters : ( a ) that the parties were married in Australia ; ( b ) that the parties had spent the majority of their married life in Australia ; ( c ) that the children were born in Australia and were Australian citizens ; ( d ) that the children had spent the majority of their lives in Australia ; ( e ) the matters referred to in ground ( 9 ) ; ( 9 ) in any event on the facts the judge was wrong to find that there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England as fora for deciding the children 's future ; ( 11 ) the judge was wrong on the facts to find that there had been a change in the circumstances to which the mother would be returning in Australia given the findings made by Thorpe J. that ( a ) the former matrimonial home was to be sold ; ( b ) it would be unavailable for occupation by the mother and the children after 7 February 1992 ; and ( c ) there would be no financial support for the mother other than state benefits : matters which neither Thorpe J. nor the Court of Appeal found amounted to ‘ an intolerable situation . ’ |
| 12 | In the legislative elections of October 1991 the party had failed to reach the necessary minimum of 7 per cent of votes cast . |