Example sentences of "[prep] [art] defendants ' " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs ' appeal from Wright J. 's order , holding that it was not open to the court to devise protection in substitution for the defendants ' privilege against self-incrimination , and that the plaintiffs ' claim was neither proprietary nor within section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 |
| 2 | The Court of Appeal dismissed the first and second defendants ' appeal against Mr Justice Vinelott 's order that the defendants permit the plaintiff 's solicitors to inspect and take copies of an affidavit in the possession of the defendants ' solicitors . |
| 3 | In the light of the defendants ' knowledge of her state of health it was reasonably foreseeable that that would happen if they were negligent and did not obtain a satisfactory resolution of her affairs . |
| 4 | The wife was entitled to compensation for her vexation , anxiety and stress which were the direct and foreseeable result of the defendants ' negligence . |
| 5 | The order was not one for the recovery or preservation of trust property but called for information and for copies of the defendants ' documents which , so far as compliance might incriminate them , the defendants were entitled to disregard . |
| 6 | During the litigation orders were made for certain of the defendants ' costs to be taxed on a standard basis . |
| 7 | This submission is the kernel of the defendants ' case . |
| 8 | The essence of the defendants ' argument is the alleged identity , in all respects , and for every purpose , between the defendants and the company . |
| 9 | The plaintiff must be the ‘ target ’ of the combination but if he is , on this view , the advancement of the defendants ' own interests does not justify the use of unlawful means . |
| 10 | Since the termination of the defendants ' employment a company in the same group as the plaintiffs had opened a number of Bureaux de Change in Paris . |
| 11 | The plaintiffs contended that their business plan was confidential , that the items of information relied upon were sufficiently confidential to be protectable after termination of the defendants ' employment and that it could be inferred that the defendants had used those items by virtue of alleged similarity between figures appearing in the respective business plans . |
| 12 | The fracture was caused during the construction of a storm sewer , involving underground work beneath the defendants ' mains , by a third party . |
| 13 | Affidavits from the defendants ' solicitors established that the photocopy affidavit was supplied to them by the second defendant for the purposes of seeking legal advice in circumstances where litigation was contemplated , but did not indicate whether the photocopy sent was a photocopy which the second defendant made for the purpose of instructing his solicitors or a photocopy which had been sent to the second defendant by the employee himself , prepared for the employee 's own purposes which had nothing whatever to do with the defendants obtaining legal advice from their soliticors . |
| 14 | Subsequently , in an unrelated claim by the plaintiff bank against the defendants , the bank sought discovery of the copy of the employee 's affidavit in the defendants ' solicitors ' possession . |
| 15 | Your Lordships are invited to construe that benevolently in the defendants ' favour as a claim to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination on the ground that the order called upon him to disclose material which might be used in furtherance of criminal proceedings against him . |
| 16 | I think that I must assume the existence of some person in the defendants ' employment who accepted and appropriated the money with a full knowledge of all the facts , particularly the discussion which had preceded the institution of the action , and the pending of the action itself , who knew and realised that the right of the defendants to receive the money was at the moment sub judice , and indeed on the point of coming before this court for decision . |
| 17 | ‘ Declare : ( 1 ) That on the taking of the accounts and inquiry order to be made and taken herein by Chief Master Munrow on 14 March 1988 the plaintiffs are entitled to raise objection to items in the defendants ' said accounts on the grounds that the items were and are unreasonable in amount but so that any doubts are to be resolved in favour of the defendants . |
| 18 | The third defendant issued a third party notice against the plaintiffs ' accountant claiming an indemnity or contribution in the event of the third defendant being held liable to the plaintiffs , on the ground that the accountant had negligently failed to warn the plaintiffs of the risks inherent in the defendants ' transactions . |
| 19 | where the plaintiff was employed by the Ministry of Supply as an inspector of munitions in the defendants ' munitions factory and , in the course of her employment there was injured by the explosion of a shell that was being manufactured . |
| 20 | The risk involved in the defendants ' operations was so great that a high degree of care was expected of them . |
| 21 | The plaintiffs relied upon the defendants ' report and as a result lost some £17 000 in monies owed by E on advertising contracts when E went into liquidation . |
| 22 | Both the defendants and the Bank of England , while not expressly acknowledging the link , invite the court to proceed for present purposes on the assumption that without the defendants ' breach the Bank of England would not have issued the section 39 notice in its present form . |
| 23 | The second defendant was sent a photocopy of the affidavit and he sent it to the defendants ' solicitors for advice in the context of the wrongful dismissal claim . |
| 24 | On the facts the court had no clear evidence that the copy sent to the defendants ' solicitors was made by or on behalf of the second defendant . |
| 25 | It is obviously irrelevant to speculate on what if anything was in the mind of the clerk or other subordinate officer who actually received the money , or in the mind of the officer ( whoever he or she may have been ) who paid it into the bank to the defendants ' credit . |
| 26 | By a respondent 's notice dated 1 July 1991 the first defendant cross-appealed , seeking an order that on the taking of accounts and inquiry ordered to be taken by Chief Master Munrow on 14 March 1988 , the plaintiffs were not entitled to raise an objection to the defendants ' accounts on the ground that the items were unreasonable in amount unless the court had deprived the first defendant as mortgagee of relevant costs . |
| 27 | ‘ Whether … ( c ) the plaintiffs are entitled … to raise an objection to the defendants ' accounts … of the nature … specified in objection number 1 … namely , that the items were unreasonable in amount … |
| 28 | As to the defendants ' claim for commission , even if a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendants had been proved , they would not thereby have lost their right to commission unless they had acted dishonestly . |
| 29 | ‘ Furtherance ’ was to be tested objectively by the courts as well as subjectively by reference to the defendants ' intentions . |
| 30 | It was also stated that a ‘ scam ’ had been running for quite some time prior to the defendants ' involvement . |