When seen from the ground and with effective screening, it was believed that this could be minimised. 15m; and (iv) the negotiation period expenses totalling US$160,213. First, it is submitted that they conflict with article 34 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”), providing that: There are two limbs to the petitioners’ challenge under EU law to the 2012 Act and to the principle of minimum pricing. It admitted before the Income-tax authorities that the purchase and sale in respect of the stores constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, but in respect of the land and buildings sold it contended that they had been purchased by way of investment, and the sale of a part of them did not result in assessable profit.
The principle of effectiveness, which sets minimum standards for the enforcement and protection of EU rights Property Lawyers in India national law, was a secondary or adjectival principle, which did not define the substance of those rights and could not whittle down those rights (para 286). “In dealing with [an application for planning permission] the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations.
66(1) also rejected it. That was the substance of the EU right which the CJEU established in para 26 of its judgment (para 287). 85m avoided general average expense of US$4. In circumstances where the objective is not achieved by other means, there should be no objection to the common law filling the gap. 95 can and should be treated as an extra expense incurred in place of the general average expense of US$4. He had the help of another professional gambler, Cheung Yin Sun (“Ms Sun”).
The owners’ case is that: (i) if they had paid the US$6m ransom initially demanded, that “would have been allowable as general average” within the meaning of Rule F; (ii) instead of doing this, they entered into successful negotiations; (iii) the resulting reduction in the ransom payable from US$6m to US$1. “…, it was felt that the application should not be restricted in the way proposed in the recommendation as this could jeopardise the viability of the scheme, deter other developers and be less effective in delivering the economic benefits.
Over two days Property Advocate in High Court August 2012 Mr Ivey, the claimant in this case, deployed a highly specialist technique called edge-sorting which had the effect of greatly improving his chances of winning. The firm appealed to this Court by special leave. As the explanatory memorandum made clear, that was not intended to detract from the general principle of transparency (which was affirmed), but was a practical acknowledgement of the different ways in which that objective could normally be attained without adding unnecessarily to the administrative burden.
First they set up the conditions which enabled him to win. The High Court Property Advocate Court in a reference under a. In these exceptional circumstances it was considered that the advantages did outweigh the harmful impact on the AONB. It was repeatedly stated that, in considering whether a delay in access to required prison courses resulted in a violation of article 5(1), “the applicant’s general progression through the prison system must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances of the case”.
The claim was rejected by the Income-tax Officer, by the Appellate Commissioner, and by the Appellate Tribunal. The principle established in James was subsequently applied by the European court in a series of cases involving prisoners serving IPP sentences. He looked at English dictionary definitions of “adequate” and “indemnity” (para 292) in support of his conclusions, and faced up to the “puzzling questions” (a) why the CJEU had not given clearer guidance that compound interest was required and (b) why the CJEU in the final sentence of para 30 had referred to the sums which HMRC had paid (para 296).
He accepted that he did not have a satisfactory answer to the latter question (para 299). Then, later that evening and the following day, over the course of some hours, he won approximately £7. “The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, Top Property Advocates in India, birth or other status.
The casino declined to pay, taking the view that what he had done amounted to cheating. The existence of a common law duty to disclose the reasons for a decision, supplementing the statutory rules, is not inconsistent with the abrogation in 2013 of the specific duty imposed by the former rules to give reasons for the grant of permission. Repeated reference was made to the statement in James that the court “must have regard to the detention as a whole” (para 201).
In each of these cases, as in James itself, the court’s decision was based on a careful individual analysis of each applicant’s prison history. The Committee had to assess whether the advantages outweighed the harm that would be caused to the AONB. His case is that it was not cheating, but deployment of a perfectly legitimate advantage. Henderson J interpreted the CJEU’s judgment in the present case as having held that the right to interest on unduly levied tax is a right conferred by EU law which ranked equally with the right to repayment of the unlawful tax itself.