Example sentences of "[noun] of [noun] 3 [prep] the " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | Ninety five per cent of the bursts occurred during a 15 minute period before the onset of phase 3 of the migrating motor complex in the antral or upper small intestinal area , or during the lower oesophageal sphincter component of the migrating motor complex . |
| 2 | I have been informed by J. Virgil Mattingly Jr. , general counsel of the board , that from information reviewed to date the board believes that the [ defendants have ] acquired , directly or indirectly , control of one U.S. bank holding company ( and its subsidiary banks ) and two other U.S. banks in violation of section 3 of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 , as amended ( 12 U.S.C. 1842 ) . |
| 3 | Lord Meston submits that the judge was wrong in this interpretation of the effect of article 3 of the Convention which must be considered in the context of article 5 . |
| 4 | There is continuing support for the hypothesis that Li + re-specifies the dorso-ventral axis in amphibians by repressing the spontaneous surge of InsP 3 in the early blastula . |
| 5 | This chapter applies the framework of chapter 3 to the specific case of the railways . |
| 6 | They represent the oesophageal body component of phase 3 of the migrating motor complex and are not a sign of oesophageal motor abnormalities . |
| 7 | In the 15 subjects in whom antral and upper intestinal recordings were not available , the relation to phase 3 of the migrating motor complex could only be determined indirectly by the temporal relation of non-deglutitive pressure waves in the oesophageal body with the non-deglutitive plastic contractions of the lower oesophageal sphincter ( this represented the sphincteric component of phase 3 of the migrating motor complex that occurred during the 10- 15 minute period preceding phase 3 in the antrum or proximal jejunum , as shown previously by others . ) |
| 8 | The bursts almost always occurred together with the lower oesophageal sphincter component of phase 3 of the migrating motor complex when the resting pressure in the sphincter is high . |
| 9 | Indeed , one will find the announcement about the death of Queen Anne in the right-hand bottom column of page 3 of the newspaper . |
| 10 | This is the basis of section 3 of the Act which , of course , only applies after an order has been made by the court for the taking of evidence . |
| 11 | Data were analysed by comparing observed and synthetic spectra for the 5 bands of HNO 3 in the 866cm -1 to 870cm -1 spectral region , where there are seven well defined manifolds of HNO 3 and an absence of other absorbers . |
| 12 | For example , the width of the five grades is not consistent , and grade 3 not only accounts for about half the land , but also covers a much wider range of possibilities than , say , grade 1 ( Gilg , 1975a ) , and even the subsequent sub-division of grade 3 in the 1970s can not be applied objectively ( Worthington , 1982 ) . |
| 13 | In proceedings brought by the husband the judge refused to order the return of the child to Canada , on the grounds that his removal and retention was not wrongful within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction , set out in Schedule 1 to the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985 , since the father had no rights of custody ; and that , under article 13 , there was a risk that the child would be placed in an intolerable situation if he was returned to Ontario because of the lack of proper accommodation and financial support . |
| 14 | Held , allowing the appeal , ( 1 ) that the Ontario court was seized of the matter and had jurisdiction to determine the place of the child 's residence ; that , accordingly , the court had rights of custody as defined by article 5 of the Convention ; and that , therefore , the wife 's removal of the child from his habitual place of residence , being in breach of the court 's rights of custody , was wrongful within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention ( post , pp. 870D–E , 874F–G , 875A ) . |
| 15 | Accordingly , Lord Meston submits that the mother 's removal of the child on 3 July 1991 was quite plainly unlawful within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention . |
| 16 | Once an unlawful removal has been established within the meaning of article 3 of the Convention , then the provisions of article 12 come into operation . |
| 17 | However , as discussed in Chapter 1 , a clause excluding liability for failure to perform due to circumstances beyond his control ( usually called a " force majeure " clause ) is considered reasonable both commercially , and for the purposes of s 3 of the UCTA . |
| 18 | It is common ground that the mother 's removal of the two boys from Australia to England on 18 September 1991 was a wrongful removal for the purposes of article 3 of the Convention . |
| 19 | The provisions of s 3 of the UCTA apply equally in these circumstances , and the protected party is placed in the same position as a consumer , even if he is acting as a businessman . |
| 20 | Liability for any type of breach arising from any cause , including total failure to perform caused by wilful default , can ( leaving aside the impact of s 3 of the UCTA ) be excluded , provided the clause is drafted widely enough . |
| 21 | The 60-second commercial is now being shown at cinemas following the launch of Alien 3 across the country . |
| 22 | Prior to the passing of s. 3 of the Civil Liability ( Contribution ) Act 1978 it was the law that judgment against one partner was a barrier to further proceedings brought against other partners for the recovery of the same partnership debt . |
| 23 | Although the interpretation of Article 3 of the Directive , which is rejected by the Court but which is the one embodied in Regulation 5 of the UK Regulations , is characterised by the Court as threatening ‘ the fundamental rights of the worker ’ to choose for whom he or she will work , the Court 's interpretation is phrased in negative terms . |
| 24 | ‘ If , on the application of the Secretary of State , the court is satisfied that a person has entered into any transaction in contravention of section 3 above the court may order that person and any other person who appears to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court may direct for restoring the parties to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into . |
| 25 | ‘ If , on the application of the Secretary of State , the court is satisfied that a person has entered into any transaction in contravention of section 3 above the court may order that person and any other person who appears to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court may direct for restoring the parties to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into . |
| 26 | Held , dismissing the appeal , that , if there had been a contravention of section 3 of the Act of 1986 , an order could be made under section 6(2) against both the contravener and persons knowingly concerned in that contravention provided that such order was intended to restore all the parties to specific transactions to their respective former positions and that the steps ordered to be taken were reasonably capable of achieving that object ; that , on a contravention of one of the provisions of section 6(1) ( a ) , an order could be made under the subsection against persons knowingly concerned in the contravention provided that the steps ordered to be taken were reasonably capable of remedying the contravention ; that such restitutionary orders could be made notwithstanding that the persons knowingly concerned had received nothing under the impugned transactions , there being no distinction between the type of order that could be made under the subsections against a contravener and a person knowingly concerned ; and that , accordingly , the judge had been right to dismiss the solicitors ' summons to strike out the S.I.B . 's claims against them ( post , pp. 907C–D , F–G , G–H , 909D–G , G–H , 910D , 913D–G , H — 914A , 915C–D ) . |
| 27 | By a notice of appeal dated 6 September 1991 the solicitors appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) under section 6(2) of the Act of 1986 the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of section 3 of the Act to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell and ( b ) under section 61(1) of the Act the court had jurisdiction to order any person other than the contravener who appeared to the court to have been knowingly concerned in the contravention of any rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to repay to investors sums paid by them to Pantell ; ( 2 ) the court had no jurisdiction under sections 6(2) and 61(1) to award claims for compensation for loss against persons knowingly concerned in such contraventions in contrast to sections 6(3) to ( 7 ) and sections 61(3) to ( 7 ) ; ( 3 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that ( a ) the power of the court under section 6(2) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention to take such steps as the court might direct for restoring the parties to the transaction to the position in which they were before the transaction was entered into and ( b ) the power of the court under section 61(1) to order a person knowingly concerned in the contravention of the rules , regulations or provisions referred to in that section to take such steps as the court might direct to remedy it included power to make a financial award against such person directing payment by that person to individual investors of sums equivalent to the amounts paid by such investors pursuant to the said transaction , neither subsection empowering the court to order restitution by the repayment of moneys outside the possession or control of the person concerned ; and ( 4 ) the judge erred in law ( a ) in his construction of sections 6(2) and 61(1) in failing to have regard to the principle ‘ generalibus specialia derogant , ’ in particular in holding that there could exist within each of sections 6 and 61 two parallel powers to order financial redress at the suit of the plaintiff , one derived from sections 6(3) and 6(4) and sections 61(3) and 61(4) respectively , which was subject to the limitations set out in those and subsequent subsections , and the other derived from section 6(2) and section 61(1) , which was subject to no such limitations ; ( b ) in rejecting the submission that sections 6 and 61 were essentially procedural and did not create new substantive legal rights and remedies ; and ( c ) in failing to have regard to the fact that the orders sought under paragraphs 11 and 13 of the prayer to the amended statement of claim required payment to the plaintiff or alternatively into court of moneys recovered thereunder from the solicitors despite the absence of any provisions for such orders in the Act , his dismissal of the summons being inconsistent with his finding that there was no provision in sections 6(2) or 61(1) directing payment into court and that any order under the sections would have to direct repayment of the sum paid to each individual investor who had made the original payment . |
| 28 | The carrying on by Pantell S.A. of an unauthorised investment business in the United Kingdom was a contravention of section 3 of the Act of 1986 . |
| 29 | The said transactions and each of them were so entered into : – ( i ) in the course of the first defendant 's contravention of section 3 of the Act for the period ( July 1988 to March 1989 ) when the third to fifth defendants were knowingly concerned therein and/or ( ii ) as a result of contraventions of sections 47 and 57 in which the third to fifth defendants were knowingly concerned . |
| 30 | ‘ An order under section 6(2) requiring the third , fourth and fifth defendants to pay such sum as the court thinks fit to the plaintiffs or alternatively into court or alternatively to each and every investor who was a party to a transaction referred to in paragraph 30 or , alternatively , to each and every investor who was a party to a transaction referred to in paragraph 31 in such manner as the court may direct for the purpose of restoring persons who entered into transactions with the first defendant in the course of contravention of section 3 by the first defendant to the position in which they were before the transactions were entered into . |