Example sentences of "[adj] [adv] it [be] held that " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | 551 where it was held that an indictment for a common law conspiracy to defraud will lie against a limited company . |
| 2 | The leading authority was the House of Lords case of Re W ( 1971 ) AC 682 where it was held that when dealing with the question of withholding consent , the test was reasonableness , not culpability or indifference , and although the child 's welfare per se was not the test , it was relevant . |
| 3 | That question was thought to have been partially settled by the House of Lords in United Scientific Holdings Ltd v Burnley BC [ 1978 ] AC 904 where it was held that prima facie time limits are not of the essence , with the result that if a time limit is missed the review can still take place . |
| 4 | Regina v. Visitors to Lincoln 's Inn , Ex parte Persaud On an application for judicial review made pursuant to leave granted by Rose J. on 17 September 1991 , the applicant in the second case , Norman Persaud , a barrister , sought inter alia , an order of certiorari to quash an order made by the Visitors to Lincoln 's Inn on 31 July 1991 whereby it was held that the applicants ' petition of appeal , dated 28 September 1990 , from the findings and the sentence of the disciplinary tribunal of the Council of the Inns of Court be dismissed . |
| 5 | The definition of " new tenant or occupier " is discussed in Chief Constable of Tayside v. Angus District Licensing Board , 1980 S.L.T. ( Sh.Ct. ) 31 where it is held that " new " refers to both tenant and occupier and that at 32 " we are dealing with the removal of the licensee , when he yields up possession to a new tenant or a new occupier/occupant " . |
| 6 | See Baljaffray Residents Association v. Milngavie & Bearsden District Council Licensing Board , 1981 S.L.T. ( Sh.Ct. ) 106 where it is held that a provisional grant of a licence is not " in force " until declared final . |
| 7 | This should be contrasted with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Griffiths v Peter Conway Ltd [ 1939 ] 1 All ER 685 where it was held that a buyer could not rely on this section when she contracted dermatitis from a Harris Tweed coat supplied because of her unusually sensitive skin . |
| 8 | 612 where it was held that a defendant had been validly committed for trial by justices notwithstanding that they had previously embarked on a summary trial but decided before the summary trial was concluded that in the circumstances they should not deal with the case and should commit the defendant for trial . |
| 9 | The following factors are among those which are taken into account : ( 1 ) the length of the previous tenancy or tenancies ( Betty 's Cafes Ltd v Phillips Furnishing Stores Ltd [ 1957 ] 1 Ch 67 at 88 ) ; ( 2 ) any period during which the tenant has held over pending resolution of his application ( London and Provincial Millinery Stores Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [ 1962 ] 1 WLR 510 ) ; ( 3 ) the landlord 's intentions as regards his own occupation of the property ( Wig Creations Ltd v Colour Film Services Ltd ( 1969 ) 113 SJ 688 where it was held that the new tenancy should expire shortly after the landlord would become entitled to rely upon s30(1) ( g ) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 ) ; ( 4 ) the prospects of redevelopment of the property ( Reohorn v Barry Corporation [ 1956 ] 2 All ER 742 ; London and Provincial Millinery Stores Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd ) ; ( 5 ) the balance of hardship , and the relative bargaining positions of the parties ( Upsons Ltd v Robins ( E ) Ltd [ 1956 ] 1 QB 131 ; Amika Motors Ltd v Colebrook Holdings Ltd ( 1981 ) 259 EG 243 ) ; ( 6 ) the tenant 's business needs ( CBS ( United Kingdom ) Ltd v London Scottish Properties Ltd ( 1985 ) 275 EG 718 ) . |
| 10 | The position is now somewhat alleviated by the case of Rowlands ( Mark ) Ltd v Berni Inns Ltd [ 1985 ] QB 211 where it was held that the intention of the parties to the lease was that the landlord 's claim would be against the insurers under the insurance policy and that the landlord would not have a claim against the tenant for breach of covenant , to the effect that there was no claim to which the insurers could be subrogated . |