Example sentences of "hold [conj] it [was/were] not " in BNC.
Next page| No | Sentence |
|---|---|
| 1 | The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs ' appeal from Wright J. 's order , holding that it was not open to the court to devise protection in substitution for the defendants ' privilege against self-incrimination , and that the plaintiffs ' claim was neither proprietary nor within section 72 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 |
| 2 | It might look at the purpose of the rule , and imply a term which , though not amending the rule , supplemented it sufficiently to change its emphasis — perhaps by holding that it was not meant to apply after the introduction of the cash-settled contracts . |
| 3 | The decision in the case of Jean Sorelle Ltd v Rybak ( [ 1991 ] IRLR 153 ( EAT ) ) had decided that where an applicant acts on the advice of a member of the IT staff , it was open to an IT to hold that it was not reasonably practicable for the claim to have been presented in time . |
| 4 | The patient had been removed from her previous general practitioner 's list six months previously and was at the material time on no doctor 's list , and the Crown Court had held that it was not practicable for a doctor who had acquaintance with the patient to make the recommendation . |
| 5 | Held that it was not taxable because it was not paid under an enforceable contract . |
| 6 | It was held that it was not copra cake at all but a substance quite different to that contracted for and , because of this , the sellers could not rely on an exclusion clause purporting to exempt them from liability . |
| 7 | It was held that it was not fair for the plaintiff to rely upon clause 10 to enable him to escape from the consequences of a clear misrepresentation on an important matter which had induced the defendants to exchange contracts even though the representation was not repeated in the contract . |
| 8 | In Nielson-Jones v Fedden [ 1975 ] Ch 222 it was held that it was not sufficient for the husband and wife to sign a memorandum to the effect that the husband was to have a free hand to sell the property and use the money to buy a new house for himself although in Burgess v Rawnsley [ 1975 ] Ch 429 it was held that a beneficial joint tenancy was severed by the oral agreement of one joint tenant to sell her share in the property to the other even though that agreement was not specifically enforceable . |
| 9 | Michael Davis , J. who heard the motion by Shoreham-by-Sea Urban District Council , in the High Court , for an order that they be at liberty to issue writs of sequestration , held that it was not necessary for the plaintiffs to satisfy the court that the defendants had acted wilfully in the sense of contumaciously , with a deliberate intention to defy the court order , since the Rules of the Supreme Court , 1965 , do not contain in Order 45 , Rule 5(1) , the word ‘ wilful ’ . |
| 10 | The initiative in theology in the closing years of Troeltsch 's life was already passing to those who held that it was not , and that the whole direction of thought which could be seen as culminating in him needed to be put into reverse . |
| 11 | In a further passage , the court held that it was not necessary for the corporation to suffer injury . |
| 12 | Since Morland J. found that the cases mentioned above demonstrated , without uncertainty or ambiguity , that the council as a local authority was entitled to sue for damages in respect of the libels alleged in the statement of claim , he held that it was not necessary to have regard to article 10 . |
| 13 | The court held that it was not open to the defendant to raise at that stage the question of the validity of the notice to quit . |
| 14 | The Industrial Tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time ( i.e. they would exercise their discretion to allow it in late ) . |
| 15 | The European Court of Justice held that it was not relevant whether the ownership of the undertaking was transferred . |
| 16 | In Bullivant ( Roger ) Ltd v Ellis [ 1987 ] ICR 464 they held that it was not right to extend the term of the injunction beyond the period for which the advantage might reasonably be expected to continue . |