Example sentences of "see [noun] v. [noun prp] [noun] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | For discussion of adequate display of notice , see Tevan v. Motherwell District Licensing Board ( No. 1 ) 1985 S.L.T. ( Sh.Ct. ) 14 , where it was held that display of a notice within a post office was sufficient . |
| 2 | It was not at once noted that a corporation may by its agents commit , or counsel or procure , the commission of criminal offences as has since been established : see Rex v. I.C.R. Haulage Ltd. [ 1944 ] K.B . |
| 3 | On the other hand major defects in a second-hand car might well mean that it is not of merchantable quality ( see Crowther v. Shannon paragraph 7–19 below ) . |
| 4 | It may be a misuse of the process of the court to escape statutory time limits : see Reg. v. Brentford Justices , Ex parte Wong ( 1980 ) 73 Cr.App.R. 67 . |
| 5 | Self-neglect is , after all , a free-standing verdict : see Reg. v. Surrey Coroner , Ex parte Campbell [ 1982 ] Q.B . |
| 6 | Although the petitioner was , for the reasons indicated , entitled to appeal as of right , the present petition by the petitioner is of necessity a petition for the grant of special leave to appeal and the grant of such leave remains discretionary : see Lopes v. Valliappa Chettiar [ 1968 ] A.C. 887 . |
| 7 | But it is well established by authority of this House ( see Atkinson v. United States of America Government [ 1971 ] A.C. 197 , and Reg. v. Governor of Brixton Prison , Ex parte Kotronis [ 1971 ] A.C. 250 ) that , until the enactment of section 11(3) of the Act of 1989 , no such discretion was vested in the English courts in extradition matters , the relevant discretion being vested in the Secretary of State : see Ex parte Sinclair [ 1991 ] 2 A.C. 64 , 80–81 , per Lord Ackner . |
| 8 | Further , it is always open to a court , on proof of new facts , to make an order supplemental to an original order : see Ford-Hunt v. Raghbir Singh [ 1973 ] 1 W.L.R. 738 , 740 , per Brightman J. The affidavit evidence before Saville J. gave him an incomplete picture of the actual situation in Somalia and the current attitude of Her Majesty 's Government ; there is now additional relevant evidence before the court . |
| 9 | Extreme circumstances may arise when it could be right so to hold : see Halsey v. Esso Petroleum Co . |
| 10 | Minor defects must , for example , be expected to materialise in a second-hand car ( see Bartlett v. Sydney Marcus above ) . |
| 11 | Such an agreement could easily give rise to the inference that they intended the passing of property to be similarly postponed ( see Underwood v. Burgh Castle Brick & cement Syndicate , above ) . |
| 12 | First , section 18 was irrelevant since the parties by making an f.o.b. contract had indicated their intention that property was to pass as and when the goods were loaded onto the ship ( see Underwood v. Burgh Castle Brick & cement Syndicate , above ) . |
| 13 | Treaty , and in particular with articles 7 and 30 , of the distribution between national quotas of the total volume of catches available to the Community , see Romkes v. Officier van Justitie ( Case 46/86 ) [ 1987 ] E.C.R. 2671 , 2687–2688 , paras . |
| 14 | For circumstances where an English court ordered licensing justices to grant a licence when they had adjourned their statutory meeting beyond the statutory time , see R. v. Denbigh Justices ( 1895 ) 59 J.P . |
| 15 | ( See R. v. Slough If. , ex p . |
| 16 | ( But see R. v. Warwick Crown Ct. , ex p . |
| 17 | For an example of an application of these , see R. v. Bristol Crown Court , ex p . |
| 18 | See Wolfson v. Glasgow District Licensing Board , 1981 S. L.T. 17 , where an application for a new off-sale licence was granted in restricted form in terms of s.29(1) of the Act . |
| 19 | However , the point is not clear-cut , since occupancy may in fact be shared by the owner and the person managing the premises on behalf of the owner ( see Wheat v. E. Lacon & Co . |
| 20 | For further discussion of " facilities of the same or similar kind " , see Collins v. Hamilton District Licensing Board , 1984 S.L.T. 230 , where it was held that it is the facilities which have to be the same or similar , not the type of licence . |