RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
|
|
- Miranda Collins
- 5 years ago
- Views:
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 Any stay will remain in force until revoked or the appeal is dismissed, determined or withdrawn. 4.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 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationReasons 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 informationIN 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 informationFinal 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 informationMr 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 informationEDITORIAL 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 informationUpper 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 informationCONSEIL 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 informationREAL 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 informationTable 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 informationArbitration 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 informationPROCEDURE 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 informationSUPREME 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 informationTHE 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 informationEnvironmental 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 informationIn 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 informationB 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 informationTHE 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 informationFIRST-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 informationTHE 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 informationTHE 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 informationIn 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 informationUpper 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 informationTHE 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 informationTHE 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 informationUpper 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 informationHEARING 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 informationAppeal 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 informationHEARING 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 informationTHE 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 informationAPPENDIX 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 informationTHE 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 informationBefore: 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 informationASYLUM 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 informationTHE 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 informationIN 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 informationTHE 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 informationTHE 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 informationUpper 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 informationTHE 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 informationIN 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 informationJUDGMENT. [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 informationTHE 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 informationIN 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 informationARBITRATION 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 informationOmbudsman 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 informationAli (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 informationUpper 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 informationRACING 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 informationOutflanked 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 informationTHE 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 informationTHE 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 informationSUPREME 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 information27 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 informationBENZILE 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 informationIN 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 informationMH (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 informationTHE 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 informationUpper 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 informationAPPLICATION 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 informationBRAAMFONTEIN 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 informationIN 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 informationRACING 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 informationThe 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 informationCase 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 informationWW (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 informationBYLAW 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 informationDEPUTY 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 informationDISCIPLINE 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 informationMr 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 informationTHE 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 informationBEFORE 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 informationTHE 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 informationIN 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 informationHIGH 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 informationJUDGMENT. [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 informationTHE 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 informationSOLICITORS 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 informationRACING 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 informationREPUBLIC 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 informationVN (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 informationI 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 informationTHE 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 informationUpper 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 informationTHE 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 informationRent 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 informationTHE 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 informationHEARING 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 informationFINANCIAL 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 informationREAL 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 informationConveyancing 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 informationTHE 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 informationTHE 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 informationARBITRATION 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 informationRajen 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 informationTITLE 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 informationTHE 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 informationTHE 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 informationArbitration 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