In Stylianou v Toyoshima [2013] EWHC 2188 (QB), the claimant was very severely injured in a road accident in Western Australia and repatriated six weeks later. In any event, Rome II was not about jurisdiction and did not override the CPR. There was no reason to interpret “damage” in the CPR as in the specific article 4. Reasons can be briefly stated, the degree of particularity required depending entirely on the nature of the issues falling for decision.
“The reasons for a decision must be intelligible and they must be adequate. A reasons challenge will only succeed if the party aggrieved can satisfy the court that he has genuinely been substantially prejudiced by the failure to provide an adequately reasoned decision. ” The Deputy Health Officer (including Deputy Health Officer. There will be a difference in standard of proof as between civil and criminal proceedings, but that does not affect the meaning of cheating.
1 was expressly excluding what would otherwise be included Property Advocates in High Court India the word “damage”. He pointed out that article 2. 1 of the Rome II Regulation provides that “damage shall cover any consequence arising out of the tort/delict …”, so India Property Advocate that article 4. 1 rather than in the general article 2. Counsel for Anusuya Devi requested that in any event the question which has been referred by the Tribunal in pursuance of the order of the Property Advocates India High Court Court may be reframed and a supplementary statement may be ordered to be submitted by the Tribunal.
Again, a supplementary statement may be ordered only on the question arising out of the order of the Tribunal, and if the Court is satisfied that the statements are not sufficient to enable the Court to determine the question raised thereby, and when directed may be only on such material and evidence as may already be on the record but which has not been included in the statement initially made: Keshav Mills Ltd.
They must enable the reader to understand why the matter was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the ‘principal important controversial issues’, disclosing how any issue of law or fact was resolved. Section 42 expressly does not exhaustively define cheating, and the elaboration in section 42(3) is explanatory rather than definitive. The concept of cheating long pre-dates section 42 of the Gambling Act 2005. They should enable disappointed developers to assess their prospects of obtaining some alternative development permission, or, as the case may be, their unsuccessful opponents to understand how the policy or approach underlying the grant of permission may impact upon future such applications.
“Permission is granted under Section 481(1)(a) of Chapter 30 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act of 1949 to file complaint for the offence committed in breach of the provisions of law as shown in the above report. The section leaves open what is and what is not cheating, as is inevitable given the extraordinary range of activities to which the concept may apply. b) for requiring the removal of any buildings or works authorised by the permission, or the discontinuance of any use of land so authorised, at the end of a specified period, and the carrying out of any works required for the reinstatement of land at the end of that period.
Plainly, what is cheating in one form of game may be legitimate competition in another. The reasoning must not give rise to a substantial doubt as to whether the decision-maker erred in law, for example by misunderstanding some relevant policy or some other important matter or by failing to reach a rational decision on relevant grounds. However, there is no reason to doubt that cheating carries the same meaning when considering an implied term not to cheat and when applying section 42 of the Act.
It clearly embraces the kind of malpractice described in the statutes of 1664, 1710 and 1845. Sir Robert Nelson rejected the argument that the CPR should be interpreted in the same way. Field J accepted that argument on the basis that, since SOMO had no interest in or rights over CBI’s account with the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, the debts which Taurus sought to attach were never within SOMO’s free disposition and could therefore not be the subject of a third party debt order.
Decision letters must be read Property Lawyer in High Court India a straightforward manner, recognising that they are addressed to parties well aware of the issues involved and the arguments advanced. The court’s discretion was a “valuable safety valve rendering unnecessary a narrow definition of damage” (para 53). But power to reframe a question may be exercised to clarify some obscurity in the question referred, or to pinpoint the real issue between the tax- payer and the department or for similar other reasons : it cannot be exercised for reopening an enquiry on questions of fact which is closed by the order of the Tribunal.
The reasons need refer only to the main issues in the dispute, not to every material consideration. This time, the defendants argued that Booth and Cooley were incorrect, because they were decided before Regulation (EC) 864/2007 of the European Parliament and Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (the Rome II Regulation) came into force. But such adverse inference will not readily be drawn.
Section 42 thus adopted a longstanding concept. 1 provides that the applicable law shall be the law of the country “in which the damage occurs, irrespective of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred and irrespective of the country or countries in which the indirect consequences of that event occurred”.