Example sentences of "court of [noun prp] [prep] [noun] [prep] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The next significant decision is the decision of Fraser J. at first instance in the High Court of Ontario in Duval v. Seguin ( 1972 ) 26 D.L.R. ( 3d ) 418 . |
| 2 | By notice of appeal dated 22 April 1992 the father appealed on the grounds , inter alia , that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that any consideration of the children 's welfare in the context of a judicial discretion under article 13 ( a ) of the Convention was relevant only as a material factor if it met the test of placing the children in an ‘ intolerable situation ’ under article 13 ( b ) ; ( 2 ) the judge should have limited considerations of welfare to the criteria for welfare laid down by the Convention itself ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law to reject the submission that in the context of the exercise of the discretion permitted by article 13 ( a ) the court was limited to a consideration of the nature and quality of the father 's acquiescence ( as found by the Court of Appeal ) ; ( 4 ) in the premises , despite her acknowledgment that the exercise of her discretion had to be seen in the context of the Convention , the judge exercised a discretion based on a welfare test appropriate to wardship proceedings ; ( 5 ) the judge was further in error as a matter of law in not perceiving as the starting point for the exercise of her discretion the proposition that under the Convention the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the state from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 6 ) the judge , having found that on the ability to determine the issue between the parents there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England , was wrong not to conclude that as a consequence the mother had failed to displace the fundamental premise of the Convention that the future of the children should be decided in the courts of the country from which they had been wrongfully removed ; ( 7 ) the judge also misdirected herself when considering which court should decide the future of the children ( a ) by applying considerations more appropriate to the doctrine of forum conveniens and ( b ) by having regard to the likely outcome of the hearing in that court contrary to the principles set out in In re F. ( A Minor ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 25 ; ( 8 ) in the alternative , if the judge was right to apply the forum conveniens approach , she failed to have regard to the following facts and matters : ( a ) that the parties were married in Australia ; ( b ) that the parties had spent the majority of their married life in Australia ; ( c ) that the children were born in Australia and were Australian citizens ; ( d ) that the children had spent the majority of their lives in Australia ; ( e ) the matters referred to in ground ( 9 ) ; ( 9 ) in any event on the facts the judge was wrong to find that there was little to choose between the Family Court of Australia and the High Court of England as fora for deciding the children 's future ; ( 11 ) the judge was wrong on the facts to find that there had been a change in the circumstances to which the mother would be returning in Australia given the findings made by Thorpe J. that ( a ) the former matrimonial home was to be sold ; ( b ) it would be unavailable for occupation by the mother and the children after 7 February 1992 ; and ( c ) there would be no financial support for the mother other than state benefits : matters which neither Thorpe J. nor the Court of Appeal found amounted to ‘ an intolerable situation . ’ |
| 3 | These questions were considered by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Watt v. Rama [ 1972 ] V.R. 353 , whose conclusions and reasoning were adopted by Potts J. in B. v. Islington Health Authority [ 1991 ] 1 Q.B . |
| 4 | The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of Palau in Gibbons v Salii has affirmed that there is no authority to enter into the Compact of Free Association without compliance with the Constitution . |
| 5 | As jewels and goldsmiths ' work from the Thurn und Taxis family go under the hammer this month at Sotheby 's Geneva , other , even more historically evocative works of art from the collection are on show in the Belgian Archives Géneral to celebrate nearly 500 years of the world 's oldest postal service , founded by the Thurn und Taxis , which began with a link between the imperial residence of the Habsburgs in Innsbruck and the court of Margaret of York in Malines , Belgium . |
| 6 | Their Lordships were shown a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Stinchcombe v. The Queen ( unreported ) , 7 November 1991 from which it appears that ( partly in reliance on section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms ) a much wider view is taken of the prosecution 's duty of disclosure of documents to the defence , namely , that , subject to certain discretions as to whether and when disclosure should be made , the Crown has a legal duty to disclose all relevant information to the defence on the basis that |
| 7 | A similar tendency to expand the concept of compulsion is to be discovered in the majority judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Eadie v. Township of Brantford ( 1967 ) 63 D.L.R. ( 2d ) 561 ( though events of a more dramatic character have since occurred in that jurisdiction , to which I will refer in a moment ) . |
| 8 | In their approach to the irregularities which have been discussed their Lordships gladly adopt what was said by the High Court of Australia in Davies v. The King ( 1937 ) 57 C.L.R. 170 , 180 , and cited with approval by the Jamaican Court of Appeal in Reg. v. Grant and Hewitt , 12 J.L.R. 585 , 591 : |
| 9 | The powers of the court are greater than the powers of a natural parent : see the recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Department of Health and Community Services v. J. W. B. and S. M. B. ( 1992 ) 66 A.L.J.R. 300 , 314 , 333 ; In re R. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Consent to Treatment ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , 25 , 28 . |
| 10 | 3 ) , similar to one which had been advanced before the High Court of Australia in Jago v. District Court of New South Wales ( 1989 ) 168 C.L.R. 23 . |