StringNet search result

Example sentences of "[prep] the defendants [noun] " in BNC.

No	Sentence
1	My Lord , erm those are , those are my submissions my Lord , I was going to say something about my learned friends somewhat unusual request to your Lordship to make disparaging comments in judgment about the defendants case , my learned friend wishes to make disparaging comments we save a proper place for those in his submissions when he comes to apply to strike out , or say anything about that , erm , my Lord erm perhaps erm as a , as a final point , erm Mr Bernard after having reviewed a piano recital once wrote , the only thing he enjoyed more than this directive performance was having his teeth pulled , I think your Lordship has not found that the last five and a half days are equally an under defended experience in relation to , to this mornings sir activity
2	of the defendants case
3	Right , it 's clear i n't it under four rule twenty eight , four , it 's not essential for the disallowance of any cost or interest that er the taxing officer should be satisfied that erm the other party has been prejudiced , in fact that is not a condition precedent to the exercise of his part and disallow interest in this here item , er any prejudice there maybe is merely one factor to be taken into account in other matters and it does seem to me that the fact the court can , can properly and should properly take into account , is , is that erm , it is desirable that to litigation should erm comply with there obligations , either expressly , express or explicit under the rules of the court to comply with matter such as it should have orders part drawn up and served as appropriate , as I say it seems to me that er the plaintiffs 's can be criticized in not erm having perfected the order of Mr Justice er before they did so but er , I have , it seems to me to look at all the relevant pictures in the case , er if it were the case that the plaintiff suffered any prejudice as the result of that claim , clearly that would be a matter which I would have to take into account , but I 'm bound to say it does n't seem to me that the fender of the plaintiffs to perfect the order did in fact cause any prejudice to the plaintiff and indeed if they , the plaintiffs had perfected the order , it seems to me exactly the same course of events as in fact transpired in this case , would actually have occurred and would n't make any difference at all , so unless it 's a matter of simply of er seeking to punish the plaintiff as a matter of discipline , it seems to me there is a , not really anything in the point that the order was not perfected er when it seems to me it should of been , and I , there stood to see the other er circumstances , now it 's quite clear to me having been referred to correspondence , passing between the solicitors that erm although really from a very early stage er the plaintiffs solicitors referring to Mr a letter of early nineteen ninety one indicating that erm the view was being taken that the likelihood was that erm the plaintiffs would have to get their costs out of the defendants share and interest in the premises and er that would be a matter which could only be dealt with when the enquiries director by Mr Justice had been dealt with .
4	The plaintiffs claim that they suffered loss and damage as a result of the defendants breach of contract er my Lord erm essentially having completed on this purchase they then tried er to run the business financially and in accordance with the terms of the lease , erm but it 's all been the plaintiff 's evidence that right from the start erm he was well prepared that there was insufficient working capital and insufficient funds er to run this business properly and efficiently and indeed shortly after purchasing it advice was sought about er re-sale and er if your Lordship looks at page eighty eight of the pleadings bundle which twenty one the plaintiff 's case on page eighty eight , the top of the page my Lord .
5	my Lord yes I 'm just trying to find the my Lord it 's er tab thirty six of the defendants authority
6	right , well , I 'm , I 'm not worried about the point as to whether it arise out of cross examination , I seldom am because there is always erm can be an opportunity for further cross examination if the other party wants to , so er on the grounds of the objection I , I , I do n't uphold it you can ask that if you like , but er I do want the jury always to keep their eye on that what really is the issue in the case er certainly from the defendants point of view , I know what you say
7	Mr replied that is what Mr was asking the other to do , that is to hold their hand and to enter into negotiations , now I fully appreciate that erm doctor feels strongly that the defendants have not been negotiating in good faith and have been simply dragging matters out for his benefit , now when I say that I 'm simply saying what I understand to be doctor view , I 'm certainly not suggesting that I 'm finding as a fact , but that was the decision , indeed I could n't cos I 've not heard all the evidence on this matter not as Mr to address me on that one , it seems to me with all respect to doctor missions on this matter that if there has been any dragging of feet or other improper conduct of either the defendants in connection with er they remain on in the premises and not paying what doctor would consider to be a full and proper rent or if there has been problem about their not disclosing documents when they should have done , the position is that doctor has er by making an appropriate application to the court , for maybe the appropriate relief arising out of the facts which he can establish , but that is not in general a matter which erm the court should go into on the question of taxation , it 's not , th this particular taxation of costs is a taxation as I understand it that are formally to the debt of the order of Mr Justice and there is thus no question of the court having to consider the question when the those tax those costs have been swollen or increased in any way by reason of spinning out negotiations whether to run up costs or otherwise , that simply does n't arising it seems to me in this case that maybe a matter which may arise possibly at some future date , though I would hope it would not do so , but er so far as the costs down to the end of the trial of the twentieth of March nineteen ninety one are concerned , it seems to me the fact that the parties maybe negotiating subsequently to deter to rece to resolve the outstanding issue , it 's not a matter which really goes to the question of erm what is the proper amount to allow for taxation of costs which have already been incurred , before these negotiations erm we do n't the figure of the costs appears to have been effectively agreed between the solicitors at forty two thousand pounds , the plaintiff solicitors made it quite clear that they were seeking interest , this was clear in apparently of nineteen ninety two , but this held their hand , er it seems to me the reason they held their hand rather than indicate it was because the defendant through his solicitor was asking them to do so and it seems to me that Mr was acting very sensibly in the defendants interest , because if in fact they had gone ahead and taxed their costs there and then the position would simply be that there would of been an award for taxation , in order , there would be a taxation resulting in an order for payment of of some cost probably in the region of forty two thousand pounds and er that order would itself carry interest under the judgements act , it does n't seem to me it can be sensibly said that erm any interest has to be in any way increased by reason of this delay and it seems to me that erm if one looks at order sixty two and twenty eight er certainly under paragraph B two erm there 's a reference there to any additional interest payable under section seventeen because of the failure on the May , erm , it does n't seem to me that the effect of what has in fact incurred , in this case has been , caused any additional interest to be paid and er it seems to me the only best that I can see in the evidence before me to , which would enable the court to erm , conclude that there should be a disallowance of interest would be as I say because the plaintiffs appear not to have perfected the order for the payment of perfectively two years , just over two years , erm it seems to me however that , that on balance probably it simply a matter of oversight and even if it had been perfected it would n't of made as I guess the least bit of difference to the way the negotiations er proceeded and accordingly I take the view that erm there are no grounds for disallowing interest from either the plaintiffs bill of costs or the defendants bill of costs , accordingly erm to allow the defendants appeal in preparation to the disallowance of costs er interest and to dismiss the defendants appeal for application in relation to an additional period , P sixty of course disallowed , I also propose to dismiss the sum of , the appeal by the plaintiffs from the refusal of taxing master to disallow the interest on the defendants bill of costs .
8	The requirement effect on trade which member states of jurisdiction requirement , it is jurisdictionable because it is the first task that the commissioner of the court should undertake when considering quote from wind surfing get in constant and the concept and agreement which may effect trade is intended to define in the law governing cartels the boundary between the areas , respectively covered by community law and national law , it is not necessary law for the competition effected by the alleged restriction and the trade which is effected between members of states to be the same , an example in the defendants list of authorities it 's in the principal and in that case the restriction of competition arose in relation to a product possible spirits which was itself used to manufacture other products namely cognac , it was argued that the that since there was no trade between members of state and possible spirits there could be no effect upon trade between member of states and so twenty five could not apply , the court accepted that factual premise , there is no trade between member of state and import of spirits , but rejected the legal conclusion , they concluded that is was necessary for there to be an effect upon trade in the market where the restrictions occurred , they was trading another product which was related to possible spirits , and of course stated , it must be observed in that respect that any agreement who 's object to effect is to a strict competition by fixing minimum prices for an intermediate product is capable of effecting intro community trade , even if there is no trading in that intermediate product between members of state , that the product constitutes the raw material of another project marketing elsewhere
9	Whether strictly order twenty eight , er order sixty , rule twenty eight for erm applies in this case is not amount entirely clear to me because the obligation to lodge a bill of taxation under rule twenty nine provides that he must begin proceedings for the taxation either within three months after the judgement direction or order of the terminations enter sides are otherwise perfected , and that is presently on it 's face which seemed to be debited May of nineteen ninety three and er accordingly that is right , it 's not in fact been any failure to comply with order tw order sixty two , rule twenty nine , one , and that has n't been disregarded , it 's not entirely clear to me that erm there is any matter come from paragraph sub paragraph A of rule twenty eight , four , it may already require , still nevertheless erm fall within paragraph B of rule fo , erm there has in fact been a delay in lodging the bill of costs for taxation , the delay being really and truly , the delay in having the order of Mr Justice perfected and it seems to me that although in chasing matters generally speaking it is the court will itself draw the order , nevertheless where er it seems to be clearly in this case would contemplate it that counsel would sign a minute erm that counsel do sign a minute and that minute has been signed having forwarded by the defendants solicitors to the defendants solicitors seems to me it must be the case that erm the obligation to , as it were , forward that minute to the court , it is an obligation which would lie upon the plaintiffs solicitors and it maybe said that erm there has been delay and erm on the best it should be lodged with the court sealed , er shortly after it was received and that therefore on that footing there has been delay lodging the bill of costs for concession , er Mr , doctor does n't seemed to be take any point in relation to that er because it 's not in his interest to do so , it seems to be that he does have to say if it has been delayed , with an order of twenty eight rule four that 's a rule , rule , rule twenty eight er four if he is to have interest disbarred and er Mr er he 'll apparently have the matter of read before the taxing master , it seems that the taxing master did not chew any sympathy with that er suggestion , that er there was in fact no breach of the requirement rule twenty , four , Mr he said , very probably , that erm , look on text upon it , he really is concerned to erm have this case dealt with as you put it on the merits , it seems to me it 's in the interest of all parties that erm I should deal with the case on merits have on the assumption erm that er , that that was lodged properly I think , I ca I , a matter of which found within rule twenty eight , four and that the taxing officer give our interest under that rule .
10	Now it seems to me with erm with great respect from the view of the taxing officer , that er it 's quite clear that er both parties were holding han were holding their hands in relation to a question of taxation because negotiations were going on between the parties and indeed the defendants were being requested er not to proceed with taxation but to see if they could obtain an overall assessment and the point was met to the defendants barrister , telling quite frankly there would n't be much advantage in the defendants pushing on with erm taxation because they 'd only , they would have to look to his interest in the property to get payment , it seems to me in those circumstances that it can not be said that erm the plaintiffs were in any way acting improperly and not seeking to have the costs taxed during the period while the negotiations were being carried on er because effectively and
11	Unknown to the defendants Y Bank was acting as agent for Z Bank , the plaintiff .
12	Mr replied that is what Mr was asking the other to do , that is to hold their hand and to enter into negotiations , now I fully appreciate that erm doctor feels strongly that the defendants have not been negotiating in good faith and have been simply dragging matters out for his benefit , now when I say that I 'm simply saying what I understand to be doctor view , I 'm certainly not suggesting that I 'm finding as a fact , but that was the decision , indeed I could n't cos I 've not heard all the evidence on this matter not as Mr to address me on that one , it seems to me with all respect to doctor missions on this matter that if there has been any dragging of feet or other improper conduct of either the defendants in connection with er they remain on in the premises and not paying what doctor would consider to be a full and proper rent or if there has been problem about their not disclosing documents when they should have done , the position is that doctor has er by making an appropriate application to the court , for maybe the appropriate relief arising out of the facts which he can establish , but that is not in general a matter which erm the court should go into on the question of taxation , it 's not , th this particular taxation of costs is a taxation as I understand it that are formally to the debt of the order of Mr Justice and there is thus no question of the court having to consider the question when the those tax those costs have been swollen or increased in any way by reason of spinning out negotiations whether to run up costs or otherwise , that simply does n't arising it seems to me in this case that maybe a matter which may arise possibly at some future date , though I would hope it would not do so , but er so far as the costs down to the end of the trial of the twentieth of March nineteen ninety one are concerned , it seems to me the fact that the parties maybe negotiating subsequently to deter to rece to resolve the outstanding issue , it 's not a matter which really goes to the question of erm what is the proper amount to allow for taxation of costs which have already been incurred , before these negotiations erm we do n't the figure of the costs appears to have been effectively agreed between the solicitors at forty two thousand pounds , the plaintiff solicitors made it quite clear that they were seeking interest , this was clear in apparently of nineteen ninety two , but this held their hand , er it seems to me the reason they held their hand rather than indicate it was because the defendant through his solicitor was asking them to do so and it seems to me that Mr was acting very sensibly in the defendants interest , because if in fact they had gone ahead and taxed their costs there and then the position would simply be that there would of been an award for taxation , in order , there would be a taxation resulting in an order for payment of of some cost probably in the region of forty two thousand pounds and er that order would itself carry interest under the judgements act , it does n't seem to me it can be sensibly said that erm any interest has to be in any way increased by reason of this delay and it seems to me that erm if one looks at order sixty two and twenty eight er certainly under paragraph B two erm there 's a reference there to any additional interest payable under section seventeen because of the failure on the May , erm , it does n't seem to me that the effect of what has in fact incurred , in this case has been , caused any additional interest to be paid and er it seems to me the only best that I can see in the evidence before me to , which would enable the court to erm , conclude that there should be a disallowance of interest would be as I say because the plaintiffs appear not to have perfected the order for the payment of perfectively two years , just over two years , erm it seems to me however that , that on balance probably it simply a matter of oversight and even if it had been perfected it would n't of made as I guess the least bit of difference to the way the negotiations er proceeded and accordingly I take the view that erm there are no grounds for disallowing interest from either the plaintiffs bill of costs or the defendants bill of costs , accordingly erm to allow the defendants appeal in preparation to the disallowance of costs er interest and to dismiss the defendants appeal for application in relation to an additional period , P sixty of course disallowed , I also propose to dismiss the sum of , the appeal by the plaintiffs from the refusal of taxing master to disallow the interest on the defendants bill of costs .
13	The plaintiff served on the defendants notice of motion making application to the county court to commit them to prison for the alleged contempt of court entailed by breach of the injunction .
14	The meeting of the seventeenth of September at the defendants offices is admitted by the defendant erm , but there is no admission as to what was said at the meeting .
15	Whether strictly order twenty eight , er order sixty , rule twenty eight for erm applies in this case is not amount entirely clear to me because the obligation to lodge a bill of taxation under rule twenty nine provides that he must begin proceedings for the taxation either within three months after the judgement direction or order of the terminations enter sides are otherwise perfected , and that is presently on it 's face which seemed to be debited May of nineteen ninety three and er accordingly that is right , it 's not in fact been any failure to comply with order tw order sixty two , rule twenty nine , one , and that has n't been disregarded , it 's not entirely clear to me that erm there is any matter come from paragraph sub paragraph A of rule twenty eight , four , it may already require , still nevertheless erm fall within paragraph B of rule fo , erm there has in fact been a delay in lodging the bill of costs for taxation , the delay being really and truly , the delay in having the order of Mr Justice perfected and it seems to me that although in chasing matters generally speaking it is the court will itself draw the order , nevertheless where er it seems to be clearly in this case would contemplate it that counsel would sign a minute erm that counsel do sign a minute and that minute has been signed having forwarded by the defendants solicitors to the defendants solicitors seems to me it must be the case that erm the obligation to , as it were , forward that minute to the court , it is an obligation which would lie upon the plaintiffs solicitors and it maybe said that erm there has been delay and erm on the best it should be lodged with the court sealed , er shortly after it was received and that therefore on that footing there has been delay lodging the bill of costs for concession , er Mr , doctor does n't seemed to be take any point in relation to that er because it 's not in his interest to do so , it seems to be that he does have to say if it has been delayed , with an order of twenty eight rule four that 's a rule , rule , rule twenty eight er four if he is to have interest disbarred and er Mr er he 'll apparently have the matter of read before the taxing master , it seems that the taxing master did not chew any sympathy with that er suggestion , that er there was in fact no breach of the requirement rule twenty , four , Mr he said , very probably , that erm , look on text upon it , he really is concerned to erm have this case dealt with as you put it on the merits , it seems to me it 's in the interest of all parties that erm I should deal with the case on merits have on the assumption erm that er , that that was lodged properly I think , I ca I , a matter of which found within rule twenty eight , four and that the taxing officer give our interest under that rule .