Newey J’s decision to award costs to Mr Willers on a standard basis is readily understandable. 368 also ‘includes the power to abrogate the Constitution completely and to replace it by an entire new Constitution, does not really arise in the present case, for the Seventeenth Amendment has not done any such thing and need not be considered. The judge makes this point clearly and accurately in the third sentence of para 2.
It recommended by way of “immediate restrictions” (2-A) was inserted therein. Expenditure of court time is sometimes the NRI Legal public price of justice. For example, if the representee does not believe that the representation is true, he NRI Legal services may have serious difficulty in establishing that he was induced to enter into the contract or that he has suffered loss as a result. While in the original article 31-A the general expression “any provisions of his Part” was found, in the amended article the scope was restricted only.
It is enough to say that it may be open to doubt whether the power of amendment contained in Art. To my mind it is not necessary, as a matter of law, to prove that the representee believed that the representation was true. 14, 19 and 31 and 4 other clauses were included, namely, clauses providing for (a) taking over the management of any property by the State NRI Lawyers for a limited-period; (b) amalgamation of two or more corporations; (c) extinguishment or modification of rights of person; interested in corporations; and (d) extinguishment or modification of rights accruing under any agreement, lease or licence relating to minerals, and the definition of “estate” was enlarged in order to include the interests of raiyats and under-raiyats.
A trial of Mr Willers’ claim will of course take up further court time, but that is not a good reason for him to have to accept a loss which he puts at over £2m in legal expenses. Whether a provision “relates to” a reserved matter, in the sense explained by Lord Walker, is determined by reference to the purpose of the provision in question. Article 31A has further been amended by the Constitution (Fourth Amendment) Act, 1955. By the said amendment in the Ninth Schedule to NRI Legal services the Constitution entries 14 to 20 were added.
Subject to one point, the ingredients of a claim for deceit based upon an alleged fraudulent misrepresentation are not in dispute. to the violation of Arts. If Langstone’s action against Mr Willers had gone to a full trial, and if at the end the judge had refused an application for indemnity costs because he judged that the claim had not been conducted improperly, then to attempt to secure a more favourable costs outcome by bringing an action for malicious prosecution would itself have been objectionable as an abuse of the process of the court, because it would have amounted to a collateral attack on the judge’s decision.
5 of his admirable judgment. 842 NRI Lawyers If We keep in mind this difference, between constitutional amendment or constitutional law and an ordinary amending Act or law, it should not be difficult to hold that when Art 13 (2), speaks of the St-ate making a law, it is referring to ordinary law made under the powers conferred by Art. The Gifford report, received by the council on 16 June 2006, identified serious structural defects, and recommended a full structural survey as a matter of urgency.
On the other hand, nrillegalservices the notion that the costs order made nrillegalservices has necessarily made good the injury caused by Mr Gubay’s prosecution of the claim is almost certainly a fiction, and the court should try if possible to avoid fictions, especially where they result in substantial injustice. The expressed object of the amendment was to carry out important social welfare legislations on the desired lines, to improve the national economy of the State and to avoid serious difficulties raised by courts in that regard.
Indeed, it may be very relevant. It must be shown that the defendant made a materially false representation which was intended to, and did, induce the representee to act to its detriment. But those are not the circumstances and I do not regard Mr Willers’ claim to recover his excess costs as an abuse of process. As was said in relation to the similar provisions in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in In re Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill [2014] UKSC 43; [2014] 1 WLR 2622, para 50: That purpose is to be ascertained having regard to the effect of the provision, amongst other relevant matters.
However, that is not to say that the representee’s state of mind may not be relevant to the issue of inducement. In my opinion there is no clear authority to the contrary. 245 etc read with various Lists and various provisions of the Constitution where express provision to that effect has been made and is not referring to the amendment of the Constitution which is made under the ‘constituent power. 31 was amended and cl. The action had been discontinued and the judge would not have been able to determine whether Mr Willers should recover indemnity costs without conducting what would have amounted to a trial of the present action.