I Property Lawyers in India High Court agree with Moore-Bick LJ’s construction of the letters of credit and prefer it to that advanced by Sullivan and Briggs LJJ and indeed Lord Neuberger and Lord Mance. The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction, on the basis that the members of the board enjoyed judicial immunity. It is common ground that all Property Lawyers in India, whether tangible or intangible, has a situs for legal purposes. Lord Bridge’s remark has to be understood in its context.
The Courts below concurrently found that the sub-lettings after the commencement of the Act were made without obtaining the consent of the landlord in writing, and the sub-lettings before the commencement of the Act were Property Advocates in High Court India made without obtaining the consent of the landlord either orally or in writing. On these submissions it is urged that Haroon’s conviction is based really on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. She complained that, as a witness in proceedings before the board, she had been treated by its members in a manner which amounted to sex discrimination.
We are not inclined to interfere with this concurrent finding. [B] We hereby engage with the beneficiary and Central Bank of Iraq that documents drawn under and Property Advocate in India compliance with the terms of this credit will be duly honoured upon presentation as specified to credit CBI A/c with Federal Reserve Bank New York. A civilian employee of a police force brought a claim in an Employment Tribunal under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 in relation to the conduct of members of a disciplinary board constituted under the Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985 (SI 1985/518).
fourthly as these confessions, were later retracted their probative value is nil; and fifthly Kashinath’s previous statement cannot be used to corroborate him -as an accomplice cannot corroborate himself. Since it involves dealing with Property Advocates India, the English courts do not have jurisdiction to make such an order in respect of debts situated outside the jurisdiction, unless by the law applicable in that place an English order would be recognised as discharging the liability of the third party to the judgment debtor: see, in particular, per Lord Bingham of Cornhill at para 26.
The case of Heath concerned events pre-dating the Framework Directive. The parties agree that it is therefore necessary to identify the situs of the debts which Crédit Agricole owes to SOMO. In reverse order, these are (1) to revisit the rule itself; (2) to modify the rule; or (3) to apply the existing rule in such a way that the smoking ban binds the Crown. In particular, it made no suggestion of any such rights in the second United Kingdom-Mauritius meeting in July 2009 or in a submission to the House of Lords in February 2010.
The language of the letters of credit seems to me to bear out Moore-Bick LJ’s approach. It is further common ground that, as Moore-Bick LJ put it in para 14, in Société Eram Shipping Co Ltd v Cie Internationale de Navigation [2003] UKHL 30; [2004] 1 AC 260 the House of Lords held that a third party debt order is a proprietary remedy, which, when complied with, operates to discharge the debt and to release the debtor from his obligation.
If necessary, defer or refuse. The case sought to establish a novel type of liability relating to the manner in which an investigation was conducted. (f) the employer State and the employee have otherwise agreed in writing, subject to any considerations of public policy conferring on the courts of the State of the forum exclusive jurisdiction by reason of the subject-matter of the proceeding. Fifthly, despite the appellant’s reliance on a paper prepared by Professor Brownlie for and read at a United Kingdom-Mauritius meeting in January 2009, containing at most only a fleeting suggestion of such rights, Mauritius never really advanced such rights with any clarity at any time throughout 2009 to March 2010, referring instead constantly to its sovereignty claim and refusing on that basis to engage with any consultation.
Mr Phillip Havers QC, for the appellant, urges one of three courses upon us, each of which would have the result that the smoking ban is binding on the Crown. If you feel there is insufficient time to digest new information or that there is simply insufficient information before you, request that further information. The Administrative Court correctly so concluded (para 158). “Do come to your decision only after due consideration of all of the information reasonably required upon which to base a decision.
Lord Bridge’s reference to policy considerations was directed to that claim: he was not addressing the question whether the police may owe a duty of care to avoid causing reasonably foreseeable physical injury in the course of their operations. The proceedings before the tribunal and the Employment Appeal Tribunal appear to have been conducted without any reference to EU law, but before the Court of Appeal reliance was placed on article 6 of the Equal Treatment Directive, Council Directive 76/207/EEC.
Reliance was placed on the latter dictum, but it is of no assistance to the respondent in the present case.