Example sentences of "the plaintiffs ' [noun pl] " 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 | The plaintiffs claim damages from a number of defendants , including the third defendant , under the following heads : ( 1 ) general damages for conspiracy ; ( 2 ) exemplary damages on the basis that the acts complained of were calculated to make a profit for the conspirators or their companies and constituted a cynical disregard for the plaintiffs ' rights ; and ( 3 ) damages for deceit as an alternative to damages for conspiracy . |
| 3 | The Court of Appeal reached their decision with regret because as they clearly saw Mr. Tully is seeking to exploit the privilege against self-incrimination in order to frustrate the plaintiffs ' claims . |
| 4 | 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 . |
| 5 | ‘ 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 . |
| 6 | ‘ 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 . |
| 7 | The plaintiffs ' accountants were Deloitte , Haskins & Sells and the defendants ' accountants were Peat , Marwick , Mitchell . |
| 8 | In Marshall ( Thomas ) ( Exporters ) Ltd v Guinle [ 1978 ] 3 WLR 116 whilst managing director of the plaintiffs and without their knowledge or consent , the defendant placed orders for the benefit of himself and his own company with the plaintiffs ' suppliers . |
| 9 | The defendants applied to have the plaintiffs ' actions struck out on the ground that the proper forum for any claim against them was Scotland and that the special jurisdiction laid down in articles 5 and 6 of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 , scheduled to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982did not apply so as to permit the defendants to be sued in England , notwithstanding that they were domiciled in Scotland . |
| 10 | Accordingly on 5 June 1991 Buckley J. made against various defendants orders for disclosure and discovery including an order in paragraph 18 that Mr. Tully should make and serve on the plaintiffs ' solicitors an affidavit : |
| 11 | The terms in which it expressed this decision are to be found in a letter dated 23 October 1991 addressed to the plaintiffs ' solicitors and written by Mr. A. D. Farries , a principal in the Crown Prosecutor Fraud Investigation Group . |
| 12 | 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 . |
| 13 | Similarly , in Hall v Wandsworth Health Authority ( 1985 ) 129 SJ 188 the court said that costs could be awarded when the respondents had been dilatory in answering the plaintiffs ' solicitors ' requests for discovery with no excuse and that leave to appeal from the master 's order as to costs was not necessary . |
| 14 | Henry J. held that the intention of strikers was to put pressure on their employers to improve their conditions of service and not to disrupt the plaintiffs ' contracts , even though that was an unavoidable by-product of the strike . |
| 15 | This has been highlighted in two lines of decisions in road traffic cases where the plaintiffs ' damages have been reduced , even though they in no way caused or contributed to the accidents in which they were injured . |
| 16 | The second class of cases , it is suggested , concerns breaches of contract which , although not breaches of a fundamental term , have particularly serious consequences for the innocent party , as in Harbutt 's Plasticine Ltd v Wayne Tank & Pump Co Ltd [ 1970 ] 1 QB 447 where the installation of defective machinery by the defendants caused a fire which destroyed the plaintiffs ' premises . |
| 17 | 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 . |
| 18 | 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 . |
| 19 | If the plaintiffs ' allegations are proved , the defendants would have been liable to them in negligence before the passing of the Congenital Disabilities ( Civil Liability ) Act 1976 . |
| 20 | Walton J. did not purport to decide the case on the basis of a payment made under a mistake of law and I agree with the doubts expressed by Romer J. in Twyford v. Manchester Corporation [ 1946 ] Ch. 236 , 241 , as to this being a true case of money paid under a mistake of law having regard to the plaintiffs ' expressions as to their understanding of the law at the time of the payments . |
| 21 | The plaintiffs ' contentions under this heading do not seek to cut down or erode or encroach upon the privilege against self-incrimination . |
| 22 | And that is just the kind of order , it seems to me , which ought to have been granted if the plaintiffs ' contentions are correct . |
| 23 | This can be demonstrated in Vacwell Engineering Co Ltd v BDH Chemicals [ 1971 ] 1 QB 88 where a chemical supplied by the defendants , although fit for the plaintiffs ' purposes , exploded on contact with water , though this was unknown to the plaintiffs . |