Example sentences of "[num] [noun prp] 1991 the [noun sg] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Woolwich appealed , and on 22 May 1991 the Court of Appeal by a majority ( Glidewell and Butler-Sloss L.JJ. , Ralph Gibson L.J . |
| 2 | On 30 July 1991 the Banking Act 1987 ( Meaning of Deposit ) Order 1991 was made , which provided that the definition of ‘ deposit ’ in section 5 of that Act excluded a sum to which a person became entitled , otherwise than by operation of law , after presentation of a winding up petition or , where a petition had already been presented , after 30 July 1991 . |
| 3 | On 30 July 1991 the Banking Act 1987 ( Meaning of Deposit ) Order 1991 was made . |
| 4 | On 2 July 1991 the judge gave directions for the substantive hearing , which was to be dealt with by hearing oral evidence . |
| 5 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to carry out a review of its compliance procedures in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to warn clients of the extent to which they may be exposed to risk in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 , when the firm gave advice to clients such that , if acted upon , it would result in commission being received , it failed to inform those clients of that position in writing in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to issue engagement letters in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to ensure that it had adequate records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 6 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to carry out a review of its compliance procedures in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to warn clients of the extent to which they may be exposed to risk in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 , when the firm gave advice to clients such that , if acted upon , it would result in commission being received , it failed to inform those clients of that position in writing in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to issue engagement letters in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to ensure that it had adequate records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 7 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to carry out a review of its compliance procedures in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to warn clients of the extent to which they may be exposed to risk in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 , when the firm gave advice to clients such that , if acted upon , it would result in commission being received , it failed to inform those clients of that position in writing in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to issue engagement letters in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to ensure that it had adequate records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 8 | FCA of who had been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 1.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to carry out a review of its compliance procedures in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to warn clients of the extent to which they may be exposed to risk in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.32 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 , when the firm gave advice to clients such that , if acted upon , it would result in commission being received , it failed to inform those clients of that position in writing in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to issue engagement letters in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Camberley between 6 October 1989 and 22 August 1991 the firm failed to ensure that it had adequate records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 9 | By notice of motion dated 12 April 1991 the plaintiff made application to the county court for committal to prison of the defendants , alleging breach of the injunction by their execution of a charge over the property . |
| 10 | It is not material to any issue before the court , but I should record that on 26 March 1991 the board of Lautro considered whether intervention remained justified in the light of information that had come to their knowledge since 30 October 1990 . |
| 11 | In a written answer on 7 May 1991 the minister of state said that 274 mandatory life sentence cases were considered in 1990 , possibly because there was still a backlog from pre- Handscomb days . |
| 12 | On 26 April 1991 the Bank of England , who have entered the action as interveners pursuant to my order made on the first day of the hearing last Tuesday , served on the defendants a notice pursuant to section 39(3) ( a ) of the Banking Act 1987 , requiring them to produce at Threadneedle Street at noon on 9 May 1991 a number of specified documents ( comprising all or some of the documents covered by the injunction ) and stated to concern or relate to the accounts or related business of seven of the plaintiffs including A , on the ground that they were reasonably required by the Bank of England for the performance of its functions under the Act . |
| 13 | The position improved somewhat in 1999 and 1990 , and on 31 March 1991 the prison population stood at 45,106 in a system with accommodation for 43,262 ( NACRO , 1991b ) . |
| 14 | On 5 July 1991 the Bank of England presented a petition for an order that an authorised bank be wound up on the ground that it was insolvent . |
| 15 | On 5 July 1991 the Bank of England presented a petition to the court for an order that B.C.C.I. be wound up . |
| 16 | On 17 May 1991 the mother filed a ‘ counter-petition , ’ seeking custody and also seeking leave to remove the child to England . |
| 17 | On 17 December 1991 the case came before Mr. Assistant Recorder Lockhart-Mummery Q.C . |
| 18 | On 5 December 1991 the father applied for an order that his two children be returned to the jurisdiction of the State of Victoria , Australia , on the ground that the mother had taken them without his consent in breach of the joint custodial rights vested in him under the Australian Family Law Act 1975 . |
| 19 | On 17 February 1991 the Government published their Child Support Bill . |
| 20 | The respondents appealed and on 4 October 1991 the Court of Appeal ( Richardson , Hardie Boys and Gault JJ. ) reversing Robertson J. , held that a binding compromise had been concluded . |
| 21 | By his order dated 5 August 1991 the judge directed that she recover on her counterclaim the sum of £24,751.59 together with interest for unlawful eviction , general damages and consequential loss . |
| 22 | On 18 September 1991 the mother wrongfully removed the children from Australia and brought them to England . |
| 23 | On 4 June 1991 the mother applied by cross-motion , seeking custody and leave to remove the child to England . |
| 24 | On 6 February 1991 the judge held as a preliminary point that the cause of action was statute-barred . |
| 25 | By a notice of appeal dated 29 November 1991 the debtor appealed on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction to make the bankruptcy order because she had not carried on business in England or Wales within three years prior to the presentation of the petition . |
| 26 | of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1992 , before recommending or effecting for clients transactions relating to investment , the firm failed to give adequate risk warnings to those clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to send engagement letters and agree them with clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to keep proper client records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 27 | of having been found to be in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.09 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1992 , before recommending or effecting for clients transactions relating to investment , the firm failed to give adequate risk warnings to those clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.47 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to send engagement letters and agree them with clients in accordance with the terms of the Regulation and having been in breach of Investment Business Regulation 2.60 in that in Windsor between 13 October 1989 and 3 June 1991 the firm failed to keep proper client records in accordance with the terms of the Regulation was reprimanded , fined £500 and ordered to pay £250 by way of costs . |
| 28 | On 8 March 1991 the council sent him a standard form letter in terms reflecting those of sections 64 and 65 . |
| 29 | By a notice of appeal dated 1 March 1991 the defendant appealed on the grounds , inter alia , ( 1 ) that the donee of the power of appointment , the defendant 's mother , Mrs. Mary Steed , did not know that she had been appointed attorney by the defendant and accordingly could not have known that she had any power to deal with his property when she executed the transfer of 4 September 1979 , and that in those circumstances the plea of non est factum ought to have succeeded on the judge 's finding that the donee was tricked into signing the transfer ; ( 2 ) the judge having rightly concluded that the transaction as affected was not a sale , save possibly at such a gross undervalue as to vitiate it as a sale , should therefore have held that the transfer was void and ineffective ; ( 3 ) the judge having rightly concluded that he retained a discretion to rectify the charges register against the registered holder , notwithstanding , as he found , that ( i ) the title of the mortgagors , Mr. and Mrs. Hammond , was merely voidable and not void , and ( ii ) that the registered holders of the charge were bona fide mortgagees for value without notice of the facts giving rise to voidability , then wrongly exercised his discretion to refuse to rectify since the considerations in favour of rectification could hardly have been stronger and his refusal to exercise his discretion was tantamount to denying the effective existence of such discretion , as if it was not exercised on the facts of this case it could never , or virtually never , be exercised at all ; and that , in the premises , the judge had erred in law in placing excessive reliance upon ( i ) and ( ii ) above to the exclusion of the other considerations which favoured rectification . |
| 30 | Flat fees used to be the rule , but since 1 January 1991 the Law Society has introduced a sliding scale of up to £1,000 : see Appendix B. The ISVA charge no fee . |