Example sentences of "[art] [num ord] defendant ['s] [noun sg] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | On 30 July 1990 the second defendant 's appeal against that order was dismissed by Judge Marder Q.C . |
| 2 | Where the causes are successive and the second defendant 's breach of duty has caused the same damage as that of the first defendant , the but for test will exonerate the second defendant . |
| 3 | If there are two or more defendants , the home court is the court for the first defendant 's address . |
| 4 | The court held that the first defendant 's negligence was a cause of the death and he was held 25% responsible . |
| 5 | 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 . ’ |
| 6 | The first defendant 's report was unfavourable to the plaintiff and it was sent by him to the plaintiff 's solicitors . |
| 7 | sought orders under section 6(2) directing the solicitors to pay such sums as the court thought fit for the purpose of restoring the investors to the position in which they were before the transactions were entered into and under section 61(1) directing the solicitors to pay such sums as the court thought fit or to take such steps as the court might direct for the purpose of remedying the first defendant 's contravention of sections 47 and 57 . |
| 8 | The said transactions and each of them were so entered into : – ( i ) in the course of the first defendant 's contravention of section 3 of the Act for the period ( July 1988 to March 1989 ) when the third to fifth defendants were knowingly concerned therein and/or ( ii ) as a result of contraventions of sections 47 and 57 in which the third to fifth defendants were knowingly concerned . |
| 9 | It was held that the plaintiffs could succeed against the first defendants in contract , but in third party proceedings the first defendant 's action against the second defendants ( the manufacturers of the pails ) failed as the pails were merchantable under s14(2) . |
| 10 | I can see that the third party would have a cogent argument that even if he were liable to compensate the plaintiffs in respect of these matters it would not be just and equitable to require him to make a contribution to the third defendant 's liability . |
| 11 | It is said that , at the third defendant 's instance , it was proposed to raise finance for C.M.C. from a lender ( ‘ B.M.T. ’ ) and that the third defendant became managing director because B.M.T. would prefer to deal with a man having a proven business record rather than a musician . |
| 12 | The sole basis of the third defendant 's claim for contribution is the Civil Liability ( Contribution ) Act 1978 , of which the material provisions for present purposes are section 1(1) , which needs to be read in conjunction with section 6(1) , and section 2(1) and ( 2 ) . |