Example sentences of "[noun pl] [subord] [art] court [modal v] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | 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 . |
| 2 | By a notice of appeal dated 6 September 1991 the solicitors appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) under section 6(2) of the Act of 1986 the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of section 3 of the Act to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell and ( b ) under section 61(1) of the Act the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of any rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell ; ( 2 ) the court had no jurisdiction under sections 6(2) and 61(1) to award claims for compensation for loss against persons knowingly concerned in such contraventions in contrast to sections 6(3) to ( 7 ) and sections 61(3) to ( 7 ) ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) the power of the court under section 6(2) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court might direct for restoring the parties to the transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into and ( b ) the power of the court under section 61(1) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention of the rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to take such steps as the court might direct to remedy it included power to make a financial award against such person directing payment by that person to individual investors of sums equivalent to the amounts paid by such investors pursuant to the said transaction , neither subsection empowering the court to order restitution by the repayment of moneys outside the possession or control of the person concerned ; and ( 4 ) the judge erred in law ( a ) in his construction of sections 6(2) and 61(1) in failing to have regard to the principle ‘ generalibus specialia derogant , ’ in particular in holding that there could exist within each of sections 6 and 61 two parallel powers to order financial redress at the suit of the plaintiff , one derived from sections 6(3) and 6(4) and sections 61(3) and 61(4) respectively , which was subject to the limitations set out in those and subsequent subsections , and the other derived from section 6(2) and section 61(1) , which was subject to no such limitations ; ( b ) in rejecting the submission that sections 6 and 61 were essentially procedural and did not create new substantive legal rights and remedies ; and ( c ) in failing to have regard to the fact that the orders sought under paragraphs 11 and 13 of the prayer to the amended statement of claim required payment to the plaintiff or alternatively into court of moneys recovered thereunder from the solicitors despite the absence of any provisions for such orders in the Act , his dismissal of the summons being inconsistent with his finding that there was no provision in sections 6(2) or 61(1) directing payment into court and that any order under the sections would have to direct repayment of the sum paid to each individual investor who had made the original payment . |
| 3 | By a notice of appeal dated 6 September 1991 the solicitors appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) under section 6(2) of the Act of 1986 the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of section 3 of the Act to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell and ( b ) under section 61(1) of the Act the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of any rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell ; ( 2 ) the court had no jurisdiction under sections 6(2) and 61(1) to award claims for compensation for loss against persons knowingly concerned in such contraventions in contrast to sections 6(3) to ( 7 ) and sections 61(3) to ( 7 ) ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) the power of the court under section 6(2) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court might direct for restoring the parties to the transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into and ( b ) the power of the court under section 61(1) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention of the rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to take such steps as the court might direct to remedy it included power to make a financial award against such person directing payment by that person to individual investors of sums equivalent to the amounts paid by such investors pursuant to the said transaction , neither subsection empowering the court to order restitution by the repayment of moneys outside the possession or control of the person concerned ; and ( 4 ) the judge erred in law ( a ) in his construction of sections 6(2) and 61(1) in failing to have regard to the principle ‘ generalibus specialia derogant , ’ in particular in holding that there could exist within each of sections 6 and 61 two parallel powers to order financial redress at the suit of the plaintiff , one derived from sections 6(3) and 6(4) and sections 61(3) and 61(4) respectively , which was subject to the limitations set out in those and subsequent subsections , and the other derived from section 6(2) and section 61(1) , which was subject to no such limitations ; ( b ) in rejecting the submission that sections 6 and 61 were essentially procedural and did not create new substantive legal rights and remedies ; and ( c ) in failing to have regard to the fact that the orders sought under paragraphs 11 and 13 of the prayer to the amended statement of claim required payment to the plaintiff or alternatively into court of moneys recovered thereunder from the solicitors despite the absence of any provisions for such orders in the Act , his dismissal of the summons being inconsistent with his finding that there was no provision in sections 6(2) or 61(1) directing payment into court and that any order under the sections would have to direct repayment of the sum paid to each individual investor who had made the original payment . |
| 4 | ‘ If , on the application of the Secretary of State , the court is satisfied that a person has entered into any transaction in contravention of section 3 above the court may order that person and any other person who appears to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court may direct for restoring the parties to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into . |
| 5 | Second , the discretion of the court ( ‘ such steps as the court may direct for restoring the parties ’ ) is conferred in very wide terms . |
| 6 | ‘ ( 1 ) If on the application of the Secretary of State the court is satisfied — ( a ) that there is a reasonable likelihood that any person will contravene any provision of — ( i ) rules or regulations made under this Chapter ; ( ii ) sections 47 , 56 , 57 , or 59 above ; … ( c ) that any person has contravened any such provision or condition and that there are steps that could be taken for remedying the contravention , the court may grant an injunction restraining the contravention … or , as the case may be , make an order requiring that person and any other person … knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court may direct to remedy it . |
| 7 | ‘ An order under section 61(1) that the third , fourth and fifth defendants and each of them pay such sum as the court thinks fit to the plaintiffs or alternatively into court or alternatively to each and every investor who was a party to a transaction referred to in paragraph 30 or alternatively to each and every investor who was a party to a transaction referred to in paragraph 31 in such manner as the court may direct or alternatively that they take such other steps as the court may direct for the purpose of remedying the contravention by the first defendant of sections 47 and 57 . |
| 8 | The width of the statutory language , ‘ such steps as the court may direct , ’ is striking and there is , in my opinion , no good reason why it should be restricted . |
| 9 | The court has power under section 6(2) to order the contravener to ‘ take such steps as the court may direct ’ to restore the parties to the transaction to their former position . |
| 10 | The court is empowered , if these two preconditions are satisfied , to make an order for ‘ such steps as the court may direct to remedy [ the contravention ] ’ to be taken . |
| 11 | ‘ If , on the application of the Secretary of State , the court is satisfied that a person has entered into any transaction in contravention of section 3 above the court may order that person and any other person who appears to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court may direct for restoring the parties to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into . |
| 12 | Section 6(2) empowers the court to order a person who has entered into a transaction in contravention of section 3 to take such steps as the court may direct for restoring ‘ the parties ’ ( that is the contravener and the investor ) to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into . |
| 13 | Perhaps it would be useful in such cases if the court could , instead of refusing relief completely , grant some sort of declaration which would not impugn the decision affecting the applicant but would state a rule or principle which would apply to future cases . |
| 14 | On Dec. 28 the Russian Constitutional Court demanded the suspension of the decree forming the new Russian Ministry of Security and Internal Affairs until the court could rule on its constitutionality . |
| 15 | ‘ ( 1 ) The bankrupt shall at the hearing be examined on oath ; and he shall answer all such questions as the court may put , or allow to be put , to him . |
| 16 | The Adoption Act of 1958 ( s. 7(3) ) did provide that ‘ The Court in an adoption order may impose such terms and conditions as the Court may think fit ’ . |
| 17 | The 1959 Act ( s.32 ) enabled a licensing court to grant licences for the sale of alcoholic liquor to " such and so many persons as the court shall think fit . " |
| 18 | Any amount paid to the court under s.61 is to be paid out , or to be distributed , among such persons as the court may direct , being a person or persons appearing to the court to have entered into transactions with the miscreant . |
| 19 | no steps may be taken to enforce any security over the company 's property , or to repossess goods in the company 's possession under any hire purchase agreement ( defined widely and including conditional sale agreements , chattel leasing and retention of title agreements ) , except with the leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose ; |
| 20 | no other proceedings , or execution or other legal process may be commenced or continued , and no distress may be levied against the company or its property except with the leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose . |
| 21 | no other step may be taken to enforce any security over the company 's property or to repossess goods in the company 's possession under any hire purchase agreement , except with the consent of the administrator or the leave of the court and subject ( where the court gives leave ) to such terms as the court may impose ; |
| 22 | Order 20 , r 12A provides as follows : ( 1 ) Subject to paragraph ( 2 ) , at any stage in an action or matter the court may , if it thinks fit for the purpose of disposing fairly and expeditiously of the action or matter and saving costs , direct any party to serve on the other parties , on such terms as the court shall think just , written statements of the oral evidence which the party intends to lead on any issues of fact to be decided at the trial and RSC Ord 38 , r 2A shall apply to a direction under this rule . |
| 23 | Clearly it will be of crucial importance in any er court proceedings because the court will have to decide whether or not an auditor was in breech of his or her duty having regard to what is on the face of the statute . |
| 24 | ‘ 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 . |