StringNet search result

Example sentences of "[vb past] on [art] grounds [conj] " in BNC.

No	Sentence
1	Both Croatia and the Lebanon objected on the grounds that Sotheby 's had been far from complete in its discovery process , and was trying to slip out from the case before the evidence of Mr Camber was made available .
2	White House chief of staff John Sununu objected on the grounds that a reduction in gas emissions would freeze US economic growth .
3	By a notice of appeal dated 23 March 1992 the father appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge had been wrong to conclude that he had no jurisdiction to make the orders sought and ( 2 ) having found that A. had been removed from his home with the father the judge had failed to order his return whether pursuant to section 8 of the Children Act 1989 or otherwise .
4	By notice of appeal dated 25 February 1991 the local authority appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the judge was wrong in law in holding that the cause of action accrued under section 10 of the Housing Act 1957 when the works were completed ; and ( 2 ) the judge ought to have held that on the true construction of , inter alia , section 10 the cause of action arose when the demands for payment were served or , alternatively , when the demands became operative following the determination of any appeal .
5	By a notice of appeal dated 23 April 1992 the Treasury Solicitor appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) on a true construction of the Evidence ( Proceedings in Other Jurisdictions ) Act 1975 the court was precluded from making the order for examination ; ( 2 ) the deputy judge had erred in law in making the order and in holding that ( i ) it was possible to interpret section 9(4) of the Act so as not to preclude the order sought , ( ii ) the exclusion contained in section 9(4) was restricted to cases where the actual capacity in which the witness was called on to give evidence was a Crown capacity and that the fact that the evidence sought was acquired in the course of the witness 's employment as a servant of the Crown was not of itself sufficient to bring the case within the exclusion , ( iii ) the fact that the witness was now retired from his position was relevant to the question whether the exclusion in section 9(4) applied , ( iv ) if some other interpretation were possible , it would be unacceptable to approach section 9(4) as requiring the court to refuse to make the order that a witness who was competent and compellable within the United Kingdom should give evidence for foreign proceedings , ( v ) there was nothing in the material sought to be given in evidence which it could have been the policy or intention of the Act to have prevented being explored ; ( 3 ) the deputy judge had erred in law in approaching the question of capacity by concentrating on the position of the witness at the time that the evidence was to be given as opposed to the position of the witness at the time that he acquired the information which was the subject matter of the evidence and the nature content and source of such evidence ; ( 4 ) the judge had wrongly ignored the fact that the Crown as a party to the Hague Convention was in a position to give effect to it and to provide evidence to foreign courts in accordance with it without recourse to the court ; and ( 5 ) the judge had wrongly approached section 9(4) on the footing that it most likely addressed prejudice to the sovereignty of the state .
6	By a notice of appeal dated 13 January 1992 the council appealed on the grounds that the assistant recorder ( 1 ) misdirected himself in holding that the question of suitability of given future accommodation for the purpose of sections 65 and 69 was one of fact and fell to be determined by the county court in proceedings for breach of statutory duty , and ( 2 ) ought to have held that the plaintiff should have proceeded by way of an application for judicial review .
7	By a notice of appeal dated 20 May 1992 the health authority appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the court had no jurisdiction to grant a mandatory injunction requiring a health authority to cause specified medical treatment to be given , alternatively , no jurisdiction to order it to cause such treatment to be given against the professional judgment of its servants or agents ; ( 2 ) the judge had erred in holding that he was not bound by the decision in In re J. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Medical Treatment ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 33 to hold that there was no such jurisdiction ; ( 3 ) there had been no material before the court to justify the judge granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction since ( a ) there was no evidence that the health authority owed J. any enforceable duty to provide the ordered treatment , or that such treatment would be in his best interests ; ( b ) there was uncontradicted evidence before the court that the treatment ordered would be painful and ineffective to give J. a prospect of long term survival and ( c ) there was no material establishing that there was a reasonable or any prospect of a final order being granted in the terms of the interlocutory order ; ( 4 ) if the court had jurisdiction to make the order the judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in that ( a ) he had failed to give sufficient weight to the uncontradicted medical evidence or to the undesirability of seeking to force a doctor to act against his professional judgment and/or requiring the employer of the doctor to do so , ( b ) he had failed to consider that the order was capable of interfering with the health authority 's duty to care for other patients , and ( c ) by its terms the order was too imprecise to enable the health authority to be able to ascertain how it should be complied with .
8	By a notice of appeal dated 1 June 1992 W. appealed on the grounds that ( 1 ) the High Court had no jurisdiction , or alternatively no jurisdiction should be exercised , to overrule the refusal of a competent minor aged 16 to undergo medical treatment ; ( 2 ) section 8 of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 should have been applied ; ( 3 ) the judge had erred in applying observations of Lord Donaldson of Lymington M.R. in In re R. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Consent to Treatment ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 which were erroneous ; ( 4 ) the judge had wrongly found that in respect of the Children Act 1989 the minor 's right of refusal was limited to the stage of assessment ; and ( 5 ) the judge had failed to have sufficient regard to the medical evidence against transferring W. , to the advantages of not moving her and to her wishes and his decision was plainly wrong .
9	By a notice of appeal dated 25 November 1991 , and pursuant to the grant of leave to appeal out of time , the plaintiff appealed on the grounds that the judge erred in law in holding that ( 1 ) the defendant was at 24 December 1989 a residential occupier within the meaning of section 27 of the Housing Act 1988 and a statutory tenant within section 2 of the Rent Act 1977 ; and ( 2 ) once a possession order had been obtained against a statutory tenant it was necessary for the landlord to obtain a warrant of possession .
10	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 .
11	The government also intervened on the grounds that a small part of the proposed merger , relating to the crisp business , contravened the monopolies law .
12	The head of the Supreme Court , Edgar Obilitas Fernández , requested on Nov. 15 that Gen. Moreira should intervene " in order to protect the judicial power from the threats it has received " , an appeal which Moreira rejected on the grounds that he took orders only from the President .
13	Most of the other South American countries will make a hid on the grounds that , even if they have no firm plans for satellite broadcasting .
14	Within a few hours he cancelled on the grounds that the subject was ‘ too sensitive ’ — some twelve years after the amalgamation of his library had taken place .
15	The postponement — announced at the beginning of the year and rationalized on the grounds that , with legislative and presidential elections due to be held in 1992 , a third set of elections would have involved undue expense — was also condemned by a growing number of student protesters and threatened to become a key issue in the campaign leading up to the presidential elections in December .
16	She refused on the grounds that it would be rude to her hosts .
17	The latter wished to marry Molla Yegan to his daughter , but Molla Yegan refused on the grounds that he was already betrothed to the daughter of his teacher in Aydin .