RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY"

Transcription

1 RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian Harness Racing Rules to disqualify him for a period of four years for a breach of The Australian Harness Racing Rules, rule 190. He has lodged a Stay Application. 2. The Tribunal has read the Notice of Appeal, Application for a Stay together with the submissions of Harness Racing NSW ( HR )opposing a stay, read the offence record and the stewards report and read the appellant s reply. The Tribunal has perused the transcript and exhibits in view of some of the issues raised. 3. The Tribunal has power to suspend (ie stay) or vary the decision under cl 14 of the Racing Appeals Tribunal Regulation by ordering that the decision not be carried into effect, or be carried into effect to the extent specified and conditions may be imposed. The appellant has lodged the appropriate written application to vest the Tribunal with jurisdiction. Any stay will remain in force until revoked or the appeal is dismissed, determined or withdrawn. 4. The Regulation is otherwise silent as to the tests to be applied for consideration of a stay application. 5. In accordance with established practice this decision is made in the absence of the parties, but after consideration of the documents listed in paragraph The relevant test therefore is that the Tribunal exercise a discretion having regard to the scope and purpose of the legislation and rules of racing considering the material before the Tribunal. 7. The principles that apply therefore are: (a) It is sufficient that the applicant for the stay demonstrate a reason or an appropriate case to warrant favourable exercise of the discretion: Alexander v Cambridge Credit Corp Ltd (1985) 2 NSWLR 685 at 694. (b) The onus is upon the applicant to demonstrate a proper basis for a stay which will be fair to all parties. (c) The mere filing of an appeal does not demonstrate an appropriate case or discharge the onus. (d) The Tribunal has a discretion involving the weighing of considerations such as balance of convenience and the competing rights of the parties. (e) Where there is a risk that the appeal will prove abortive if the appellant succeeds and a stay is not granted, the Tribunal should normally exercise its discretion in favour of granting a stay. It was otherwise expressed in Kalifaif Pty Ltd v Digi-Tech (Australia Ltd) (2002) 55 NSWLR 737 at 17 that there is a real risk that he will suffer prejudice or damage, if a stay is not granted, which will not be redressed by a successful appeal. (f) The Tribunal will not generally speculate upon the appellant s prospect of success, but may make some preliminary assessment about whether the appellant has an arguable case, in order to exclude an appeal lodged without any real prospect of success simply to gain time. 1

2 (g) Therefore if the applicant establishes that the appeal raises real issues and there is a risk of prejudice or damage which will not be redressed then the Tribunal will then consider the balance of convenience ( Kailifair supra). 8. It is necessary to briefly summarise the history of the rule 190 matter between HR and the appellant. In April 2014 notice of inquiry and suspension under rule 183 issued. In October 2014 the Supreme Court refused to set aside the suspension on procedural fairness grounds, determined a breach of 190 was an absolute offence matter and rejected challenges to various rules. In December 2014 the Court of Appeal found a failure to give procedural fairness on the suspension, declined to deal with the issue whether 190 was absolute and rejected the challenges to various rules. On 15 December 2014 suspension under 183 was imposed. On 22 December 2014 application was made for Mr Sanders, the convening steward, to recuse himself from the hearing but this application was rejected on 12 January This Tribunal determined it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from that decision. On 23 January 2015 Supreme Court proceedings were commenced against HR seeking an urgent interim injunction restraining the inquiry and by consent a temporary injunction was imposed. On 9 March 2015 the Supreme Court rejected the apprehended bias proceedings and on the same day HR issued a notice of inquiry hearing for 12 March. On 11 March the Supreme Court declined to restrain HR from conducting the inquiry and removed the rule 190 issue to the Court of Appeal. Correspondence issued between the parties and the different solicitors for the appellant and this will be referred to later. 9. In support of the stay application the appellant submits that he was dealt with in his absence and had no opportunity to be heard on penalty and that the stewards proceeded despite proceedings in the Court of Appeal. 10. In a lengthy submission in opposition to the stay, Mr Cockburn, solicitor for HR, dealt with three key points: hearing in the absence of the appellant, hearing despite proceedings in the Court of Appeal, the appellant not being heard on penalty. It was noted that the appellant s Counsel, Mr Murphy, had made a submission on a rule 187 charge (a failure to appear matter). Substantial correspondence and transcripts were provided. It is not necessary to set out the detail of the correspondence relied upon. It is sufficient to note letters of HR to the appellant s solicitors in the court proceedings of 9 March 2015 and 10 March 2015 which expressly state that if the appellant does not appear the hearing will proceed in his absence and he will be liable to a penalty under rule 187. There is the further letter from Mr Cockburn to the appellant s solicitor in the court proceedings, Mr Berry, which, summarised, contained an undertaking from HR. That undertaking followed the words although our client intends to proceed with the commencement of the inquiries as scheduled on 12 and 13 March, it undertakes. The undertakings were that the inquiry would only deal with certain preliminary matters, take some evidence, consider applications for adjournment, would not finalise the liability phase and after those preliminary matters a further date for resumption would be allocated and that the appellant would not be shut out of calling evidence or making legal argument on the question of liability. It was also emphasised that the inquiry was in the preliminary stage and would not extend to a finding on liability. These undertakings would mean that an injunction was not required pending the determination of the appeal. On 11 March Mr Berry replied, relevantly, noting the confirmation that your clients intended to proceed, with some proposed undertakings, with the inquiries on 12 and 13 March That letter when on to note his client had no alternative but to move the court for orders. 2

3 11. It is necessary to put in context the conduct of the hearing for this appellant. It took place the day after the hearing of the case against the co-appellant, Mr McDowell. In a similar stay application for Mr McDowell the appearance by Mr Murphy of counsel for that appellant contained important facts which were set out in the stay application by Mr McDowell. That stay application was considered before this stay application as the hearing by the stewards predated this hearing. The stewards convened twice on 13 March 2015 on Mr Day s hearing.the transcript of the first hearing on 13 March is 9 pages. In summary, Mr Murphy of counsel appeared before the stewards without the appellant. Mr Murphy made it quite clear on many occasions that his client would not attend. Mr Murphy was only present to make an adjournment application and leave for that purpose only was granted. On numerous occasions the stewards indicated to Mr Murphy that the appellant should be present and this was the time for the hearing. Mr Murphy declined on a number of occasions to telephone his client and ask him to attend. No other reference was made to the undertakings given by Mr Cockburn on 11 March. The hearing took some preliminary evidence involving correspondence including in particular the directions to attend. The stewards noted they had not been restrained by the appeal court from conducting the hearing and after noting the nonappearance and the refusal to attend issued a charge under rule 187. After further exchanges Mr Murphy was excused. Shortly thereafter the stewards reconvened and conducted an ex parte hearing and determined the issue of a breach of rule 190 on both an absolute and strict liability test and imposed penalty. 12. On the issue of the hearing proceeding in the absence of the appellant the HR submission relies upon the failure of the appellant to attend a hearing even for an adjournment, the correspondence expressly indicating the matter would be heard in his absence if he did not appear, the lack of any submissions that the undertaking of 11 March would apply, the failure to take numerous extended opportunities to attend, the lack of injunctive restraint and the disregard of the express warnings. On the issue of the fact the appellant has an appeal pending it was submitted that this is not a factor justifying a stay as it is not possible to assess the strength of the appeal and the Tribunal is familiar with the rule 190 issues. Reliance is placed upon remarks made in the Supreme Court proceedings on the weakness of the bias application. Further reliance is placed upon the fact that the stewards were not restrained and that an attempt to restrain the stewards was refused by the Supreme Court. On the issue of being not heard as to penalty it is submitted that that fact was of the appellant s own making by refusing to intend the hearing despite the warnings. A further submission was made in respect of the likelihood of a significant disqualification. 13. HR further submitted arguments in respect of the submission made on behalf of the appellant in respect of the rule 187 charge. The appellant s response to HR's submissions says that it is not appropriate to deal with those matters in this application. The Tribunal is satisfied that those submissions were made for a limited purpose and should not be used for or against the appellant in this application and accordingly the 187 submission of the appellant and the response to it will not be taken into account. In addition, to do so might unnecessarily extend the time required to deal with this stay application and compound the cost issues for the parties. 14. In concluding its submissions HR argue that the appellant has not made out an arguable case for appeal and to the extent that matters are relied upon they are not supported by evidence. On the balance of convenience argument it says that these matters have not been addressed in the submission and the 183 suspension has not been the subject of appeal to this Tribunal. Accordingly the refusal of the stay would not make a successful appeal nugatory. It was submitted that the continuing suspension and a likely additional period of disqualification must be considered. In conclusion it was submitted that the failure to appear at the hearing was a deliberate choice and has not been satisfactorily explained and that the factors to justify a stay have not been enlivened. 3

4 15. The submission in reply dealt only with the Stay application and, as set out above, opposed the consideration of the submissions on the rule 187 matter. The submission sets out factual matters in considerable detail which are summarised above. The submission touches upon the legal tests to be applied. In this regard the Tribunal adopts those tests set out in paragraph 7 above. It was submitted that there was a proper basis for this stay based upon the filing of an appeal, the raising of an arguable case on appeal on the 190 test and the fact that there is an obligation to accord natural justice. The fact that additional evidence is to be adduced here was relied upon and in this application it is inappropriate to speculate upon the likely success on appeal because further evidence has not yet been submitted. Accordingly it was argued that this Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the appeal has been lodged without any real prospect of success. 16. The submission in reply dealt with the balance of convenience. This required consideration of a difference between a 183 suspension and the disqualification imposed by the stewards because the latter would have a much wider implication for a trainer. It was suggested that the submission by HR that a significant disqualification was likely was a pre-judgement of penalty and that penalty in fact has been the subject of this appeal and there will be new evidence on the appeal and penalty. It was submitted that HR has not pointed to any prejudice it will suffer when a suspension under 183 was imposed to prevent greater damage to the industry. It was submitted that HR have not made any submission on the integrity of the industry concerns whilst they are suspended. It was further submitted that a stay would protect the status quo and be fair. Finally it was submitted that the continuing 183 suspension will continue to protect against any risk to the integrity of harness racing but will mean they are not completely shut out from their livelihoods pending the appeal. 17. To provide some finality in the continuing saga between these parties the Tribunal has determined it is inappropriate to seek a further round of submissions on the stay and has determined to finalise the matter on the submissions made to date. 18. On the prospects of success test, or the arguable case test, the appellant s submissions are not strong. The rule190 absolute or strict liability issue has been dealt with by this Tribunal on numerous occasions, and most recently in Hillier, and found to be absolute as it has been in earlier Supreme Court decisions and most recently in the Supreme Court involving these parties. Nothing has been put in support of this stay application by legal argument, to the extent it would be necessary, to indicate any prospect of success other than that the appellant s legal advisers do not agree that it is absolute. It is acknowledged that there is an issue for the Court of Appeal. On the prospects of success there has been no issue expressly raised on procedural fairness or natural justice. The Tribunal accepts that these tests apply to the stewards and to it but there is nothing to be decided at present on the arguments. The additional evidence to be relied upon on a finding of the breach of the rule or penalty has not been specified to such an extent that it has raised or identified an issue on liability or penalty. The appellant's case on this stay on the prospects of success or an arguable case is very weak. 19. The only issue for consideration on the prospects of success is the letter of is 11 March containing undertakings. The evidence is quite unclear as to the continued operation of those undertakings beyond the time of the letter of Mr Berry indicating that an application would be made to the Supreme Court. That letter in fact acknowledged that the inquiry would commence but it s finality would not take place. There is nothing to indicate those undertakings would continue nor that they would not continue. The only subsequent consideration took place at the stewards hearing. There is nothing in the submissions advanced by Mr Murphy to the stewards which would indicate any reliance was placed upon those undertakings relating to the failure of the appellant to appear before the stewards. There is no other evidence or submission to indicate that those 4

5 undertakings had any further application. It is quite apparent from what was said at the stewards inquiry that the appellant was not going to appear before the stewards on legal advice and nothing they could say to Mr Murphy would lead to any other outcome. The appellant simply was not going to attend and that was his own choice. It was contrary to the rules. It was contrary to the directions given to him. He could have attended and made his arguments about reliance upon the undertakings or otherwise. For the purposes of this stay application there is no finding that the stewards misled the appellant, or his legal advisers, and there is no finding that the stewards could not have determined to finish the hearing and impose a penalty because of any issue of natural justice or procedural fairness. In any event as a hearing on appeal is a de novo hearing that issue of natural justice or procedural fairness, if it was otherwise arguable, would disappear as it could be cured at the hearing of the appeal. 20. In the event that the Tribunal is wrong about the prospects of success, or arguable case test, the balance of convenience issue is nevertheless addressed. 21. It is accepted that there is a difference between a suspension and a disqualification. Here the issue is whether a disqualification should be stayed. As the stewards inquiry has been finalised the wording of rule 183 would seem to indicate that the suspension has concluded. There is no express rule or provision in the Racing Appeals Tribunal Act or its Regulation which would seem to provide continuity of that suspension once the inquiry was concluded. The appeal does not seem to reactivate it. It is noted that the parties are of a different opinion on the submissions, or they have not turned their mind to this issue. If a stay was to be granted the rule 183 suspension could nevertheless be reinstated. There is no need to consider the arguments whether a heavier penalty is possible. This stay is certainly not decided on any possibility that a heavier penalty is possible. The appellant s submission that there is no prejudice to the industry if a stay is granted is rejected. Integrity of the industry requires that a trainer found to have breached the prohibited substance rules should not enjoy the privilege of a licence or the partial privileges if only suspended. It is accepted that a stay would preserve the status quo but that should only apply if all the other tests are met. 22. The Tribunal is more persuaded by the arguments for the respondent. In particular, the fact that the stewards were not restrained by an injunction from the Court of Appeal especially in circumstances where an injunction was refused by the Supreme Court very proximately to the hearing and in that court s knowledge that the hearing was imminent. The express warnings of the consequences of nonappearance could not have been clearer, especially in circumstances where there is no evidence that any undertaking to the contrary was relied upon. The consequences of the finalisation of the stewards hearing took place in circumstances of the appellant s own making and he now cannot complain about that. The refusal of the stay after an adverse finding on a presentation with a prohibited substance and the imposition of a period of disqualification is not an unusual outcome in those circumstances. It is the usual outcome of a stay application in the circumstances. For the reasons expressed there are no facts in this application which would distinguish it from numerous other similar stay applications and outcomes. 23. There is a further factor in this case to distinguish it from the co-appellant s application. That is the fact that the stewards in fact determined the 190 test applying both an absolute and strict liability consideration. This eliminates the arguments to the effect that the determination of this appeal should await the outcome in the Court of Appeal or that this stay should have a different outcome. 5

6 24. On the balance of convenience argument the appellant fails to satisfy the Tribunal that it is an appropriate case to grant a stay. 25. In those circumstances the appellant has failed to demonstrate an appropriate case on the prospects of success, or the arguable case, test and has failed to demonstrate that the balance of convenience, should it otherwise have to be considered, should be exercised in his favour. 26. The application for a stay of the decision of the stewards is refused. DB Armati Racing Appeals Tribunal 30 March

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under

More information

Reasons for Decision. Harness Racing New South Wales ( HRNSW ) Steward s Inquiry Mr Greg Bennett

Reasons for Decision. Harness Racing New South Wales ( HRNSW ) Steward s Inquiry Mr Greg Bennett Reasons for Decision Harness Racing New South Wales ( HRNSW ) Steward s Inquiry Mr Greg Bennett Stewards Panel: R Sanders (Chairman), M Prentice & C Paul The Charges: 1. On 7 February 2014, Mr Bennett

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 78/2014 [2014] NZSC 197. Appellant. Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 78/2014 [2014] NZSC 197. Appellant. Elias CJ, McGrath, William Young, Glazebrook and Arnold JJ NOTE: THE ORDER MADE BY THE HIGH COURT ON 28 MAY 2012 PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE PARTIES' NAMES AND ANY PARTICULARS THAT WOULD IDENTIFY THE RESPONDENT (INCLUDING HER NAME, OCCUPATION, EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

More information

Final report by the Complaints Commissioner dated 2nd January 2018 Complaint number FCA00269

Final report by the Complaints Commissioner dated 2nd January 2018 Complaint number FCA00269 Final report by the Complaints Commissioner dated 2 nd January 2018 Complaint number FCA00269 The complaint 1. On 24 July 2017 you asked me to investigate a complaint about the Financial Conduct Authority

More information

Mr B Archer, solicitor

Mr B Archer, solicitor VICTORIAN CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CIVIL DIVISION DOMESTIC BUILDING LIST VCAT REFERENCE NO. D916/2006 CATCHWORDS Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 s 109 - application for an

More information

State Reporting Bureau

State Reporting Bureau State Reporting Bureau fpoc*q

More information

EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant

EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV [2016] NZDC HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant EDITORIAL NOTE: NO SUPPRESSION APPLIED. IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT QUEENSTOWN CIV-2014-059-000133 [2016] NZDC 3321 BETWEEN AND HARI AROHA RAPATA Appellant NEW ZEALAND LAND TRANSPORT AGENCY Respondent Hearing:

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/02086/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 23 October 2017 On 25 October 2017 Before Deputy

More information

CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE

CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE CONSEIL DE L EUROPE COUNCIL OF EUROPE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL Appeal No. 401/2007 Ana GOREY v. Secretary General Assisted by: The Administrative Tribunal, composed of: Ms Elisabeth

More information

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION

REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO DISCIPLINE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF A DISCIPLINE HEARING HELD PURSUANT TO BY-LAW NO. 10 OF THE REAL ESTATE COUNCIL OF ONTARIO John Van Dyk Respondent This document also

More information

Table of Contents Section Page

Table of Contents Section Page Arbitration Regulations 2015 Table of Contents Section Page Part 1 : General... 1 1. Title... 1 2. Legislative authority... 1 3. Application of the Regulations... 1 4. Date of enactment... 1 5. Date of

More information

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4288 El Jaish Sports Club v. Giovanni Funiciello, award of 28 April 2016

Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4288 El Jaish Sports Club v. Giovanni Funiciello, award of 28 April 2016 Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4288 award of 28 April 2016 Panel: Mr Ivaylo Dermendjiev (Bulgaria), Sole Arbitrator Basketball Fees of a FIBA licensed

More information

PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN

PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Squires v President of Industrial Court Qld [2002] QSC 272 PARTIES: FILE NO: S3990 of 2002 DIVISION: PHILLIP ALAN SQUIRES (applicant/respondent) v PRESIDENT OF INDUSTRIAL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 4 th April 2018 On 17 th April Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 4 th April 2018 On 17 th April Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/18141/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 4 th April 2018 On 17 th April 2018 Before DEPUTY

More information

Environmental Appeal Board

Environmental Appeal Board Environmental Appeal Board APPEAL NO. 92/23 WILDLIFE In the matter of appeal under s103 Wildlife Act, SBC Chap. 57 Index Chap. 433.1, 1982 BETWEEN Byron Dalziel APPELLANT AND Deputy Director of Wildlife

More information

In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012

In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 DEREK FREEMANTLE PUMA SPORT DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant v ADIDAS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Respondent Court: Griesel, Yekisoet

More information

B E F O R E: LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY LORD JUSTICE LATHAM LORD JUSTICE WALL JOVAN SHKEMBI. -v-

B E F O R E: LORD JUSTICE SEDLEY LORD JUSTICE LATHAM LORD JUSTICE WALL JOVAN SHKEMBI. -v- Neutral Citation Number: [2005] EWCA Civ 1592 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT C5/2005/0960 Royal Courts of Justice Strand London,

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON

More information

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL ASYLUM SUPPORT Address: 2 nd Floor Anchorage House 2 Clove Crescent London E14 2BE Telephone: 020 7538 6171 Fax: 0126 434 7902 Appeal Number AS/14/11/32141 UKVI Ref. Appellant s Ref.

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 rd September 2015 On 14 th September Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 rd September 2015 On 14 th September Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/00465/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Bradford Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd September 2015 On 14 th September 2015 Before

More information

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS. -and- Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX Appeal Number: TC/2014/01582 THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS -and- Applicants C JENKIN AND SON LTD Respondents Tribunal: JUDGE HOWARD M. NOWLAN Sitting at

More information

In the Matter of The Chartered Professional Engineers Act Appeal 07/14

In the Matter of The Chartered Professional Engineers Act Appeal 07/14 In the Matter of The Chartered Professional Engineers Act 2002 Appeal 07/14 And in the matter of an appeal to the Chartered Professional Engineers Council Between P Appellant And A Respondent Decision

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 March 2018 On 11 May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACT. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACT Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th February 2018 On 23 rd February 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 September 2015 On 18 December Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 September 2015 On 18 December Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DC/00018/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination & Reasons Promulgated On 21 September 2015

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) AA/08640/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) AA/08640/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) AA/08640/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 18 March 2016 On 7 April 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE

HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE HEARING PARTLY HEARD The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from this text. GARNETT, Dean Andrew Registration No:

More information

Appeal Panel Hearing. Case of. Mr Alexander Banyard. Thursday 15 June RICS Parliament Square, London. Panel

Appeal Panel Hearing. Case of. Mr Alexander Banyard. Thursday 15 June RICS Parliament Square, London. Panel Appeal Panel Hearing Case of Mr Alexander Banyard On Thursday 15 June 2017 At RICS Parliament Square, London Panel Julian Weinberg (Lay Chair) Ian Hastie (Surveyor Member) Helen Riley (Surveyor Member)

More information

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS

HEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th May 2016 On 15 th July Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th May 2016 On 15 th July Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/08265/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 27 th May 2016 On 15 th July 2016 Before DEPUTY

More information

APPENDIX B to Consultation Paper No Decision-Making Process

APPENDIX B to Consultation Paper No Decision-Making Process APPENDIX B to Consultation Paper No.1 2019 Decision-Making Process Issued: [xxxxx]1 March 2018 Glossary of Terms Glossary of Terms For the purposes of this document, the following terms should be understood

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 1 February 2018 On 26 February 2016 Determination prepared 1 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 1 February 2018 On 26 February 2016 Determination prepared 1 February Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE MCGEACHY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/34508/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 1 February 2018 On 26 February 2016 Determination

More information

Before: THE HONOURABLE SIR STEPHEN STEWART MR GODWIN BUSUTTIL DR. ROSEMARY GILLESPIE

Before: THE HONOURABLE SIR STEPHEN STEWART MR GODWIN BUSUTTIL DR. ROSEMARY GILLESPIE APPEAL TO THE VISITORS TO THE INNS OF COURT ON APPEAL FROM THE DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL OF THE COUNCIL OF THE INNS OF COURT Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Date: 09/10/2013 Before: THE HONOURABLE

More information

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL

ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G

More information

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) SECOND RESPONDENT

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) SECOND RESPONDENT THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 771/2010 In the matter between: DAVID WALLACE ZIETSMAN APPELLANT and ELECTRONIC MEDIA NETWORK LIMITED MULTICHOICE AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED FIRST

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 09.01.2009 ITA 1130/2006 09.01.2009 M/S HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIAL RESOURCES LTD Appellant Versus THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX... Respondent

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 November 2015 On 12 May Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JORDAN

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 November 2015 On 12 May Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE JORDAN IAC-FH-AR-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/22288/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 November 2015 On 12 May 2016 Before

More information

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents

THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS Respondents NOTE: ORDER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL AND OF THE HIGH COURT PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES, ADDRESSES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH RESPONDENTS AND THE SECOND RESPONDENT'S

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DA/00257/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DA/00257/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) DA/00257/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Decision and Reasons Promulgated On 24 th November 2015 On 11 th December 2015 Before Upper Tribunal

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 October 2006 On 10 January Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE WARR. Between. and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 October 2006 On 10 January Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE WARR. Between. and Asylum and Immigration Tribunal SA (Work permit refusal not appealable) Ghana [2007] UKAIT 00006 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 30 October 2006 On 10 January 2007

More information

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10. DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2010] NZEMPC 144 CRC 25/10 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND application for leave to file challenge out of time DEREK WAYNE GILBERT Applicant TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the Act ) against a

JUDGMENT. [1] This is an appeal in terms of section 65 of Act 51 of 1977 ( the Act ) against a IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE, PORT ELIZABETH CASE NO.: CA&R14/10 In the matter between: BASHARAD ALI Appellant and THE STATE Respondent JUDGMENT GROGAN AJ: [1] This is an appeal in terms

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HEMINGWAY Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: OA/16164/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Birmingham Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 th July 2016 On 26 th July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF Prem Nath Bali Appellant(s) VERSUS J U D G M E N T

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF Prem Nath Bali Appellant(s) VERSUS J U D G M E N T IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.958 OF 2010 Reportable Prem Nath Bali Appellant(s) VERSUS Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T

More information

ARBITRATION ACT. May 29, 2016>

ARBITRATION ACT. May 29, 2016> ARBITRATION ACT Wholly Amended by Act No. 6083, Dec. 31, 1999 Amended by Act No. 6465, Apr. 7, 2001 Act No. 6626, Jan. 26, 2002 Act No. 10207, Mar. 31, 2010 Act No. 11690, Mar. 23, 2013 Act No. 14176,

More information

Ombudsman s Determination

Ombudsman s Determination Ombudsman s Determination Applicant Scheme Respondent Mrs Y Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) MyCSP Outcome 1. Mrs Y s complaint is upheld and to put matters right Cabinet Office should pay

More information

Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI.

Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALLEN UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE CHALKLEY. Between MANSOOR ALI. IAC-FH-GJ-V6 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Ali (s.120 PBS) [2012] UKUT 00368(IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 August 2012 Determination Promulgated Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/00052/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/00052/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/00052/2015 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 8 th March 2016 On 30 th March 2016 Before UPPER

More information

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL NEW SOUTH WALES

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL NEW SOUTH WALES RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL NEW SOUTH WALES TRIBUNAL MR DB ARMATI PENALTY DECISION 21 MARCH 2017 LICENSEE GREG BENNETT AUSTRALIAN HARNESS RACING RULE 187(2) X 2 DECISION: 1. First charge- disqualified for

More information

Outflanked High Court of Australia goes behind Bankruptcy Court Judgment

Outflanked High Court of Australia goes behind Bankruptcy Court Judgment Outflanked High Court of Australia goes behind Bankruptcy Court Judgment September 18, 2017 Written by JHK Legal Senior Associate Daniel Johnston On 17 August 2017, the High Court of Australia delivered

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 March 2015 On 15 April Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 30 March 2015 On 15 April Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Manchester Piccadilly Decision Promulgated On 30 March 2015 On 15 April 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE BIRRELL Between

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SMITH.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SMITH. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: RP/00079/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 30 June 2017 On 4 July 2017 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY

More information

27 February Higher People s Court of Fujian Province:

27 February Higher People s Court of Fujian Province: Supreme People s Court Reply Regarding First Investment Corp (Marshall Island) s Application for Recognition and Enforcement of an Arbitral Award Made in London by an ad hoc Arbitral Tribunal 27 February

More information

BENZILE McDONALD ZWANE B A I L A P P E A L J U D G M E N T. 1]The appellant applied for bail before the Magistrate, Port Elizabeth and his

BENZILE McDONALD ZWANE B A I L A P P E A L J U D G M E N T. 1]The appellant applied for bail before the Magistrate, Port Elizabeth and his IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (EASTERN CAPE PORT ELIZABETH) In the matter between: Case No.: CA&R08/2011 Date heard: 12 May 2011 Date delivered: 17 May 2011 BENZILE McDONALD ZWANE Appellant and THE

More information

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016. PREET PVT LIMITED First Respondent

IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016. PREET PVT LIMITED First Respondent IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND AND AND [2016] NZEmpC 168 EMPC 338/2016 an application for freezing orders JEANIE MAY BORSBOOM (LABOUR INSPECTOR), MINISTRY OF BUSINESS,

More information

MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE JARVIS

MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE JARVIS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) MH (pending family proceedings-discretionary leave) Morocco [2010] UKUT 439 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 20 September 2010 Determination

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/50518/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS MISS ADAKU UZOAMAKA

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/04180/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 July 2014 On 22 July 2014

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/04180/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 3 July 2014 On 22 July 2014 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/04180/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 3 July 2014 On 22 July 2014 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

More information

APPLICATION TO DETERMINE AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION

APPLICATION TO DETERMINE AN INDEFINITE SUSPENSION No. 10404-2009 SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL SOLICITORS ACT 1974 IN THE MATTER OF PETER JOHN LAWSON, solicitor (Respondent) Appearances Mr A G Gibson (in the chair) Mr C Murray Mrs N Chavda Date of

More information

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T

BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01. THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G M E N T Sneller Verbatim/MLS IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA BRAAMFONTEIN CASE NO: JS 274/01 2003-03-24 In the matter between M KOAI Applicant and THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES Respondent J U D G

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 562. IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV [2016] NZHC 562. IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY CIV-2010-409-000559 [2016] NZHC 562 IN THE MATTER OF the Insolvency Act 2006 AND IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND the bankruptcy of DAVID IAN HENDERSON

More information

RACING APPEAL PANEL OF NEW SOUTH WALES APPEAL OF MR PAUL MURRAY. Mr R. Beasley SC Principal Member; Mr R Clugston; Mr J Murphy; Mrs J Foley

RACING APPEAL PANEL OF NEW SOUTH WALES APPEAL OF MR PAUL MURRAY. Mr R. Beasley SC Principal Member; Mr R Clugston; Mr J Murphy; Mrs J Foley RACING APPEAL PANEL OF NEW SOUTH WALES APPEAL OF MR PAUL MURRAY Appeal Panel: Mr R. Beasley SC Principal Member; Mr R Clugston; Mr J Murphy; Mrs J Foley Date of hearing: 26 February 2018 Date of decision:

More information

The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed.

The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. LCRO 261/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Standards Committee BETWEEN OL Applicant AND MR

More information

Case Name: LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA v. MING J. FONG

Case Name: LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA v. MING J. FONG Case Name: LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA v. MING J. FONG IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF MING J. FONG, A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF ALBERTA LAW SOCIETY HEARING FILE: HEARING COMMITTEE PANEL:

More information

WW (EEA Regs. civil partnership) Thailand [2009] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

WW (EEA Regs. civil partnership) Thailand [2009] UKAIT THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before WW (EEA Regs. civil partnership) Thailand [2009] UKAIT 00014 Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 9 February 2009 Before SENIOR IMMIGRATION JUDGE P R LANE SENIOR

More information

BYLAW NO The Saskatoon Licence Appeal Board Bylaw, 2012

BYLAW NO The Saskatoon Licence Appeal Board Bylaw, 2012 BYLAW NO. 9036 The Saskatoon Licence Appeal Board Bylaw, 2012 Whereas under the provisions of clause 8(1)(h) of The Cities Act, a city has the general power to pass any bylaws that it considers expedient

More information

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT. Between

DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 17 th September 2014 On 13 th October 2014 Prepared on 25 th September 2014 Before

More information

DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST

DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST DISCIPLINE CASE DIGEST Case 16-10 Member: Jurisdiction: James Graeme Earle Young Winnipeg, Manitoba Called to the Bar: June 16, 2005 Particulars of Charges: Professional Misconduct (11 Counts): Breach

More information

Mr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim.

Mr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim. complaint Mr S complains about Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Limited s decision to withdraw funding for his claim. background I issued a provisional decision on this complaint in December 2015. An extract

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July Before. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July Before. Deputy Upper Tribunal Judge Pickup Between Upper Tier Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: IA/32415/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 9 July 2014 On 9 July 2014 Before Deputy Upper Tribunal

More information

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. An Appeal under Section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act Appellant

BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. An Appeal under Section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act Appellant BEFORE THE REAL ESTATE AGENTS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2018] NZREADT 39 READT 023/18 IN THE MATTER OF An Appeal under Section 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 BETWEEN JENNA RAHIM Appellant AND THE

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 17 December 2015 On 5 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. On 17 December 2015 On 5 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 17 December 2015 On 5 January 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE DOYLE Between

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG (1) REPORTABLE: YES / NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES / NO (3) REVISED DATE SIGNATURE CASE NUMBER : A337/2017 In the matter

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA FRENCH CJ, GUMMOW, HAYNE, HEYDON, CRENNAN, KIEFEL AND BELL JJ PETER JAMES SHAFRON APPELLANT AND AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES AND INVESTMENTS COMMISSION RESPONDENT Shafron v Australian

More information

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth

JUDGMENT. [1] In the Court a quo the appellant was refused bail by the Port Elizabeth IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA EASTERN CAPE LOCAL DIVISION, PORT ELIZABETH Case no: CA&R15/2016 Date heard: 25 th January 2017 Date delivered: 2 nd February 2017 In the matter between: LUTHANDO MFINI

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between I L (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between I L (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12026/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 May 2016 On 1 June 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No

SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL. IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974 Case No. 10922-2012 On 28 June 2013, Mr Moseley appealed against the Tribunal s decision on sanction. The appeal was dismissed

More information

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL

RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL DATE OF HEARING: 25 July 2018 RAT 11/2018 TRIBUNAL: DEPUTY PRESIDENT: MR M KING ASSESSOR IN ATTENDANCE: APPELLANT: MR J STALLARD MR S EWEN, STEWARD, HARNESS RACING SA LTD MR RYAN

More information

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG

REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG Case no: JA90/2013 Not Reportable In the matter between: NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS TAOLE ELIAS MOHLALISI First Appellant

More information

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before

VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President

More information

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240. OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240. OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA CA35/2018 [2018] NZCA 240 BETWEEN AND OMV NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Appellant PRECINCT PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LIMITED Respondent Hearing: 24 May 2018

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2014 On 16 December 2014 Dictated on 9 December 2014.

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2014 On 16 December 2014 Dictated on 9 December 2014. IAC-FH-CK-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/36823/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 December 2014 On 16 December 2014

More information

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016.

Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016. Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/42299/2013 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 10 February 2016 On 29 February 2016 Before DEPUTY

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY. Between. and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 th April 2017 On 17 th May 2017 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KELLY Between

More information

Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest

Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April Before IAC-AH-DP-V2 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 26 th February 2016 On 19 th April 2016 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE*

HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE* HEARING PARTLY HEARD IN PRIVATE* *The Committee has made a determination in this case that includes some private information. That information has been omitted from this text. TIWANA, Sukhjinder Singh

More information

FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL

FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL FST 05-018 FINANCIAL SERVICES TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF THE MORTGAGE BROKERS ACT R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 313 AS AMENDED BETWEEN: JOHN WINSTON CARSON APPELLANT AND: THE STAFF OF THE REGISTRAR OF MORTGAGE BROKERS

More information

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003) ACTIVE REAL ESTATE LIMITED (TRADING AS HARCOURTS JOHNSONVILLE)

REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003) ACTIVE REAL ESTATE LIMITED (TRADING AS HARCOURTS JOHNSONVILLE) Decision No: [2014] NZREADT 40 Reference No: READT 043/13 IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN an appeal under s 111 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 ROBERT GARLICK Appellant AND REAL ESTATE AGENTS AUTHORITY (CAC20003)

More information

Conveyancing and property

Conveyancing and property Editor: Peter Butt STATUTORY WARFARE, ROUND 2: HAS THE HIGH COURT CONFUSED THE LAW OF ILLEGALITY? In an earlier note in this column ( Statutory warfare? What happens when retail lease legislation collides

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WOODCRAFT. Between Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA338292015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated Heard on 10 th July 2017 On 17 th July 2017 Prepared

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL CHANA. Between. MR AWAT IBRAHIMI (Anonymity direction not made) and

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL CHANA. Between. MR AWAT IBRAHIMI (Anonymity direction not made) and First-tier Tribunal Asylum and Immigration Tribunal THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision and reasons Promulgated On 10 August 2017 On 18 August 2017 Before DEPUTY JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

More information

ARBITRATION ACT. Act No: 10/2013 ARBITRATION ACT Maldivian Government Gazette Volume 42 Edition rd July 2013

ARBITRATION ACT. Act No: 10/2013 ARBITRATION ACT Maldivian Government Gazette Volume 42 Edition rd July 2013 ARBITRATION ACT Act No: 10/2013 ARBITRATION ACT Maldivian Government Gazette Volume 42 Edition 102 3 rd July 2013 Chapter I Preamble Introduction & Title 1 (a) This Act lays out the principles for the

More information

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an

Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant

More information

TITLE VII RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION MODEL CLAUSE

TITLE VII RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION MODEL CLAUSE TITLE VII RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION MODEL CLAUSE "Any dispute or difference regarding this contract, or related thereto, shall be settled by arbitration upon an Arbitral

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE I A LEWIS. Between IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 6 January 2015 On 15 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE

More information

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 th April 2018 On 14 th May Before

THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 th April 2018 On 14 th May Before Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: EA/02223/2016 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 12 th April 2018 On 14 th May 2018 Before DEPUTY

More information

Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3670 Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), award of 23 February 2015 (operative part of 4 November 2014)

Arbitration CAS 2014/A/3670 Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), award of 23 February 2015 (operative part of 4 November 2014) Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Traves Smikle v. Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission (JADCO), Panel: Prof. Matthew Mitten (USA), President; Mr Jeffrey Benz (USA); Prof.

More information