Example sentences of "[noun sg] from [pron] [pers pn] had be " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Horst and Jurgen would stand to one side of the diggers and , as each turf was cut and while it was being stacked , they would investigate the hollow from which it had been removed . |
| 2 | Alijon Selekhbayev was reinstated as Chair of the Committee for National Security , a post from which he had been removed by Nabiyev on Aug. 4 . |
| 3 | The garrison , in spite of everything and without the assistance of the Collector , continued to labour between one downpour and the next to prevent their walls of mud from oozing back into the plain from which they had been dug , but the number of men available to wield a shovel had suddenly begun to decrease alarmingly . |
| 4 | On the morning after his return to Jesus College , Coleridge paused to look about the room from which he had been absent since June , and to record his state of mind in a letter to Southey : |
| 5 | The two assassins had joined the crew of the navy rescue expedition which had followed the escape pod down from the survey vessel from which it had been ejected , and they had been prevented from finishing off both their intended victim and the accidental witnesses only because of the timely intervention of a Yek patrol . |
| 6 | Subsequently she became one of the queens of the Parisian demi-monde , ruling in the late 1860s over a loucher version of the Court from which she had been excluded . |
| 7 | It was not qualitatively different on the eve of the French Revolution from what it had been during the reign of Louis XIV . |
| 8 | Turning her head round to see what the pain could be , Pepita had seen the spider scuttle back into the crate from which she had been thrown with the bananas . |
| 9 | The House of Lords held that the hirer had not ‘ bought or agreed to buy ’ the piano which therefore still belonged to the person from whom it had been hired . |
| 10 | When , three years later , a licence was sought by the Getty Museum for its export , SAVE pressed the local authority to serve an enforcement notice requiring the return of the statue to its plinth in the grade I listed building from which it had been removed . |
| 11 | An Oxford graduate , he had moved into general management in manufacturing and then into international construction and consultancy from which he had been headhunted by Richard Addis , now one of his senior partners . |
| 12 | 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 . ’ |
| 13 | He was soon to clear his name , however , with momentous consequences for the soccer world from which he had been expelled . |
| 14 | The transition period after leaving institutional care has also been documented as a critical time , when young people may be forced to return to the unhappy home situation from which they had been removed years earlier . |
| 15 | In early 1977 , for the first time in 30 years , campesinos in the central region of the country occupied land from which they had been evicted over a long period of time to make way for export crops . |
| 16 | Living as he was on the borders of his lost paradise , in the limitless landscape of childhood from which he had been banished into adulthood , an uncomfortable country , I sensed that Jean-Claude was continually grappling with the feeling that his present was a poor reflection of his past . |
| 17 | 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 . ’ |
| 18 | Further , he cited the recent decision of In re A. ( Minors ) ( Abduction : Custody Rights ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 106 , in which Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. considered the context in which the return of a child to the country from which he had been unlawfully removed should be approached . |