Example sentences of "it [was/were] hold that [det] " in BNC.

  Next page
No Sentence
1 In MacTaggart v B&G Strump 10 TC 17 , decided before s 89 was enacted , it was held that such a payment was a capital payment .
2 It was held that such a grant where the application was for a full new licence constitutes a refusal and can be competently the subject of an appeal under 5.17(4) .
3 It was held that that provision was sufficient to make time of the essence of the time limit for the landlord 's application .
4 Manual workers made up a large proportion of the TUC membership , and the health of many of these was depicted as having been destroyed by their employment ; and , moreover , it was held that all workers had a right to a period of leisure in later life supported by-a full subsistence pension .
5 It was held that all the requirements of section 2 of the Factors Act were complied with including the requirement that the mercantile agent be in possession of goods or of the documents of title with the consent of ‘ the owner . ’
6 Gulliver , it was held that any profit made by a director as a result of the misuse of confidential information , which he had obtained by virtue of his position as an insider , was liable to account for that profit to the company .
7 Thus in Cointat v. Myham ( 1913 C.A. ) where the plaintiff bought bad meat in the Central London Meat Market , it was held that any warranty as to the fitness or quality of the meat was excluded , because there was an established custom of the market to that effect .
8 Nevertheless it was held that any false indication given by the retailer could not be said to be due to the act or default of Cadbury since the retailer could quite easily have compared the weights and prices of his existing stock and the new bars to see if the label ‘ Extra value ’ was justified .
9 It was held that these remittances , in the hands of the mother , were assessable to income tax under Schedule D , Case V as being monies received in this country in respect of foreign possessions .
10 There it was held that those persons who had access to inside information were required to observe the ‘ abstain or disclose ’ principle ie they had either to disclose the inside information which they held or abstain from trading .
11 Some consideration was given to whether the defect in Form N79 could be cured by this court under section 13 of the Act of 1960 or under R.S.C. , Ord. 59 , r. 10(3) , but it was held that this could not be done .
12 On an appeal to the Court of Appeal [ 1992 ] Ch. 342 it was held that this statement should be produced subject to certain names and passages being omitted .
13 It was held that this was insufficient information to give an arrestee , and the constable who arrested in those circumstances had gone beyond the scope of his duty since he was exercising his admitted power improperly .
14 Here it was held that this showed that all reasonable care had been taken .
15 Although claims in negligence for purely financial loss do not generally succeed , it was held that this claim by the owner against the nominated sub-contractor could succeed in negligence ( i.e. even though there was no contract between the owner and sub-contractor ) .
16 It was held that this did not entitle the buyers to reject the whole consignment .
17 It was held that this amounted to recklessness .
18 It was held that this instruction was inadequate to prevent the commission of the offence ( under section 1 ) .
19 It was held that this was no defence for the defendants who should have relied upon the defence of ‘ act or default of another person . ’
20 It was held that this did not entitle the seller to take from the buyer the proceeds of the sub-sales of his ( the seller 's ) property ; instead it merely created a charge in favour of the seller which was void because it was not registered under the Companies Act .
21 This was taken one step further in Stadium Finance v. Robbins where it was held that this requirement was not complied with .
22 It was held that this operated to avoid the contract .
23 It was held that this could not constitute a " manner of manufacture " ( the phrase used instead of " industrial application " prior to the 1977 Act ) .
24 It was held that this claim was allowable .
25 It was held that this loss should be recoverable from the shipowners because they should reasonably have contemplated that the delay would have resulted in a loss .
26 It was held that this merely incorporated the words of the headlease , and that the continuing existence of the headlease was not a condition precedent to the right to review the rent under the sublease .
27 It was held that this was a contract for sale and the plaintiffs were therefore able to sue for the price .
  Next page