Example sentences of "the plaintiffs ' [noun sg] " in BNC.

  Next page
No Sentence
1 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 .
2 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 .
3 Roskill J said that B was in breach of an implied duty in : ( a ) not communicating to the plaintiffs ' board the information which he received from the patent agents and in taking no steps to protect the plaintiffs against possible consequences of the existence of the patent ; and ( b ) using information regarding the patent for his own benefit .
4 But the principal credit goes to our legal team for identifying at the outset the essential weakness in the plaintiffs ' case .
5 The plaintiffs ' case was that Peats and Coopers had made mistakes of mixed fact and law , and that they were entitled to ask the court to determine whether or not Coopers had made those mistakes .
6 v. British Railways Board even though the goods were in no danger and the defendants recognised the plaintiffs ' title : the shortage of stock caused by industrial action was acute and damages would not adequately compensate the plaintiffs for the injury to their business .
7 ‘ 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 .
8 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 .
9 The jury negatived negligence and found that there was contributory negligence on the plaintiffs ' part , and Hawke J. held that there was no conversion , for the defendants had acted reasonably .
10 In my judgment , he would inevitably have come to the conclusion , as a matter of necessary inference , that the plaintiffs were paying and the defendants accepting the money subject to repayment if the action resulted in the plaintiffs ' favour .
11 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 .
12 Owing to a rainfall of extraordinary violence , the stream overflowed at the pond , and a great volume of water , which would normally have been carried off by the stream , poured down a public street into the town and caused damage to the plaintiffs ' property .
13 In the plaintiffs ' opinion this seriously affected their privacy and thus breached the covenant of " non-derogation from grant " , since the ground-floor had been let as a dwelling house .
14 The plaintiffs ' employee agreed to buy one of the paintings for £6,000 without asking any questions about the provenance of the paintings , or making any further inquiries about them .
15 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 .
16 Held , dismissing the appeal , that the liability imposed under section 1(1) of the Act of 1978 was intended by Parliament , by virtue of section 6(1) of the Act , to enable claims for contribution to be made as between parties who had no claim for contribution under the general law , and applied whenever a plaintiff had a cause of action against a third party in respect of the same damage as gave rise to his cause of action against the defendant , irrespective of the legal basis of the liability ; and that , accordingly , the defence of ex turpi causa non oritur actio could not be relied upon in answer to a claim for contribution under the Act ; and that , since there was sufficient possibility of the third party being found liable for some part of the plaintiffs ' loss , there were no grounds for striking out the third party notice ( post , pp. 1022H — 1023A , G–H , 1024G — 1025D ) .
17 The plaintiffs ' loss of business was pecuniary or economic damage .
18 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 .
19 Shortly afterwards they invited the seventh defendant who was employed by the plaintiffs ' group to join them .
20 The Crown Prosecution Service were informed of Buckley J. 's order and of the plaintiffs ' intention to appeal from the decision of Wright J. , and were asked whether they wished to intervene or make representations in the appeal .
21 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 .
22 Held , allowing the appeal , that it was a requirement of all leases and tenancy agreements that the term created was of certain duration ; that the lease purportedly created under the memorandum of agreement , being for an uncertain period , was void and the land was held on a yearly tenancy created by virtue of the tenant 's possession and payment of yearly rent , on such terms of the memorandum of agreement as were consistent with a yearly tenancy ; and that , accordingly , since the term preventing the landlord from determining the tenancy until the land was required for road widening purposes was inconsistent with the right of either party under a yearly tenancy to determine it on six months ' notice , the plaintiffs ' tenancy had been lawfully determined ( post , pp. 283B–C , F–G , 284G–H , 285E–F , 286E–F , H — 287B , G–H ) .
23 Holmes J. recognised that it might not be possible to establish the forfeiture without quo warranto but considered that even before or until such a proceeding the effect of the clause upon the plaintiffs ' business could be serious , and ( 2 ) the incurring of a penalty which would continue to accrue and accumulate pending litigation should the plaintiffs ultimately fail .
24 The defendants had both received training in the plaintiffs ' business , including familiarisation with the contents of two manuals .
25 There was no evidence that the employees had misused any of the plaintiffs ' business secrets .
26 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
27 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 .
28 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 .
29 Secondly , is the fact that there was no separate independent advice fatal to the plaintiffs ' claim ?
30 In order to understand the nature of the application it is necessary first to consider the plaintiffs ' claim against the third defendant .
  Next page