Example sentences of "[prep] [adv] re [noun prp] " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The result became apparent in cases such as In re Missouri S.S. Co. where an English court held that a bill of lading issued in Massachusetts , to an American shipper for goods loaded in Massachusetts , was subject to English law because the carrier was British and the parties were presumed to have intended the application of English law . |
| 2 | In In re O. ( Restraint Order : Disclosure of Assets ) [ 1991 ] 2 Q.B . |
| 3 | In In re O. the Crown Prosecution Service was a party to the proceedings and consented to the order . |
| 4 | I also agree with the Court of Appeal in In re O. [ 1991 ] 2 Q.B . |
| 5 | ( 1 ) The decision in the Court of Appeal in In re O. ( Restraint Order : Disclosure of Assets ) [ 1991 ] 2 Q.B . |
| 6 | Finally , I come to what is probably the most important case of all , the decision of the Court of Appeal in In re E.W.A. ( A Debtor ) [ 1901 ] 2 K.B . |
| 7 | 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 . ’ |
| 8 | The patient may make a decision which is limited in scope , and there may also be the situation where no decision is made and in those circumstances the principle of necessity will apply as set out in the speech of Lord Goff of Chieveley in In re F. ( Mental Patient : Sterilisation ) [ 1990 ] 2 A.C. 1 , 75 . |
| 9 | In those circumstances treatment can only be justified by the principle of necessity , as stated by Lord Goff of Chieveley in In re F. ( Mental Patient : Sterilisation ) [ 1990 ] 2 A.C. 1 , 75–76 : |
| 10 | That is the intolerable dilemma described by Lord Bridge of Harwich in In re F. ( Mental Patient : Sterilisation ) [ 1990 ] 2 A.C. 1 , 52 . |
| 11 | In In re London and Northern Bank Ltd. [ 1902 ] 2 Ch. 73 , 84 , Cozens-Hardy L.J . |
| 12 | In In re North Australian Territory Co. ( 1890 ) 45 Ch.D. 87 , in relation to the same section , Bowen L.J . |
| 13 | If such were to be the case , the court would be confronted with a difference of medical opinion , very similar to the case in In re B. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Medical Treatment ) [ 1981 ] 1 W.L.R. 1421 . |
| 14 | In any event he will need to seek the opinions of other doctors and may be well advised to apply to the court for guidance , as recommended by Lord Templeman in a different context in In re B. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Sterilisation ) [ 1988 ] A.C. 199 , 205–206 . |
| 15 | That was the approach of Lord Oliver of Aylmerton in In re K.D. ( A Minor ) ( Ward : Termination of Access ) [ 1988 ] A.C. 806 where , in relation to an argument based on articles 6 and 8 of the same Convention and a previous decision of the European Court of Human Rights , R. v. United Kingdom ( Case 6/1986/104/152 ) , The Times , 9 July 1987 , he cited with approval the argument of counsel in the following passage , at p. 823 : |
| 16 | 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 . |
| 17 | In In re J. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Medical Treatment ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 33 , 48 , he said : ‘ neither the court in wardship proceedings , nor , I think , a local authority having care and control of the baby is able to require the authority to follow a particular course of treatment . |
| 18 | It is said that the views which I expressed in my judgments in In re J. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Medical Treatment ) [ 1991 ] Fam. 33 and In re R. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Consent to Treatment ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , 26 which are relevant to this were obiter and did not receive the express assent of those sitting with me . |
| 19 | In In re J. [ 1991 ] Fam. 33 , 41 , I said : |
| 20 | Likewise , in relation to companies Maugham J. in In re Vocalion ( Foreign ) Ltd. [ 1932 ] 2 Ch. 196 held that it would be more conducive to substantial justice to permit foreign proceedings , brought by a creditor domiciled overseas , to proceed . |
| 21 | In In re Shanahan ( 1941 ) 58 W.N. ( N.S.W. ) 132 , another mortgage case , Street J. said , at p. 134 : |
| 22 | Such an approach was stressed more recently by Brightman J. in respect of oral examination in In re Bletchley Boat Co . |
| 23 | In In re Beddoe [ 1893 ] 1 Ch. 547 , a case dealing with costs incurred by a trustee , Lindley L.J. , referring to the statutory predecessor of Ord. 62 , r. 6(2) , said , at p. 555 : ‘ It is right , of course , that [ mortgagees ] should be allowed costs , charges , and expenses properly incurred … ’ and at p. 558 : ‘ the words ‘ properly incurred ’ in the ordinary form of order are equivalent to ‘ not improperly incurred . ’ ’ |
| 24 | in In re R. [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , 28 , where he said : ‘ Faced with such a substantial consensus of opinion among judges who have to deal with this problem from day to day , I have to conclude that the powers of a wardship judge do indeed include power to consent to medical treatment when the ward has not been asked or has declined . |
| 25 | In In re R. [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , 22 , I said : |
| 26 | I did then , and do now , agree with what is there stated as well as with the passages to the like effect in In re R. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Consent to Treatment ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , 22 , 26 . |
| 27 | In In re R. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Consent to Treatment ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , this court was concerned with a 15-year-old girl and accordingly the meaning and effect of section 8 was not directly in issue . |
| 28 | On reflection I regret my use in In re R. ( A Minor ) ( Wardship : Consent to Treatment ) [ 1992 ] Fam. 11 , 22 , of the keyholder analogy because keys can lock as well as unlock . |
| 29 | The judgments of the visitors in In re S. ( A Barrister ) [ 1970 ] 1 Q.B . |
| 30 | The judges also exercised an original jurisdiction to give orders to the Inns of the type that are described in the judgment of the visitors in In re S. ( A Barrister ) [ 1970 ] 1 Q.B . |