Issue 1. Height in sub-precinct A Whether to retain the operative height standard of 24.5m or increase the height standards for sub-precinct A as requested in submissions.
Issue 1. The “Clause 7” issue - [Ground 2 of the POA’s Appeal; Grounds 16-19 of the Developer’s Respondent’s Notice] Issue 2 - The “common area/mauve line plan” issue - [Ground 3 of the POA’s Appeal; Also, Grounds 20-45 of the Developer’s Respondent’s Notice] 163. In my view, the issues raised in grounds 2 and 3 of the POA’s Appeal are interrelated. Figuratively speaking, they can be described as two sides of the same coin; and may be considered together. Furthermore, as will shortly appear, these two issues were central to the dispute before the learned Judge and underlie many (if not all) of the remaining grounds of appeal. 41 Paras [298] and [300.4] of the Judge’s written Decision. 42 Para [264] of the Judge’s written Decision. 43 Paras 91, 93 and 97 of the POA’s Amended Statement of Claim filed on 31 October 2017. 164. Ground 2: The POA complains that the learned Judge ‘misconstrued’ Clause 7 and erred in law in concluding that “Clause 7 is an express reservation of the Developer’s entitlement to deal as it pleases with its retained land”44; and that “the designation of “common area” was always intended to be at the Developer’s discretion, acting in good faith.”45 165. In its Skeleton Arguments46, counsel for the POA, Xxx. Xxxxx XX, identified no less than 6 alleged errors47 of law which, the POA claims were committed by the learned Judge in the course of construing Clause 7. The Judge’s “errors” in interpreting Clause 7, she contends, denied the POA the relief which it ought to have been granted in the court below. 166. Firstly, Xxx. Xxxxx submits48 that the learned Judge erred, inter alia, by failing or by failing to give proper consideration to the word “Subdivision” which, she says, appears throughout Clause 7 as well as in the first sentence thereof. Developing the submission, she contends that the word “Subdivision” is expressly defined in Clause 1 of the OFB conveyances as “the numbered lots shown on the Plan” and hence, related solely to Phase 1 of the OFB Subdivision49 and not the OFB subdivision as a whole.
Issue 1. Did the trial judge err in awarding s. 24(1) Charter damages caused by the Government’s mandate per se, rather than for the manner it had been imposed, thereby misapprehending the nature of the s. 2(d) breach that warranted compensation? 12 Issue 2: Did the trial judge xxx in awarding Charter damages by assuming that the Government’s mandate caused UMFA to strike and to lose a four- year agreement that was similar to a proposal previously rejected? 13 Issue 3: What is an appropriate and just award of damages under s. 24(1) for the s. 2(d) Charter breach? 13 IV. ARGUMENT 14
Examples of Issue 1 in a sentence
TR-TSY-000191 Alarm Indication Signals Requirements and Objectives, Issue 1, May 1986.
CLEC-1 shall select a vendor which has been approved as a BellSouth Certified Vendor to perform all engineering and installation work on the Microwave Collocation arrangement pursuant to TR-73503, BST Electrical Standards for Wireless Service Providers on BellSouth facilities Issue 1, Sept 1996, and BST Building Construction and Fire Safety Standards – Section 16170 – June 1998.
Xxxxx, X., ‘Customary International Law in the 21st Century: Old Challenges and New Debates’, EJIL, Volume 21, Issue 1, Pp. 173.
More Definitions of Issue 1
Issue 1. Does the Commission have the statutory authority to grant FPL’s requested storm cost recovery mechanism as part of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement? *Yes. The Commission has approved substantially the same mechanism in settlements of FPL’s last three rate cases. The Florida Supreme Court has rejected challenges to the last two of those settlements and affirmed they were in the public interest. Further, the proposed mechanism is consistent with the Commission’s rule on storm cost recovery, and the calculation of amounts to be recovered would be performed in accordance with the Commission’s Incremental Cost and Capitalization Approach methodology.*
Issue 1. For the off-stream watering with/without fencing BMP, the workgroup recommended that the livestock shading requirement be removed from the stream protection without fencing definition. o DECISION: UMD accepted the workgroup’s recommendation. Shade should not be a requirement for this practice, although they suggested saying in the definition that shading should be encouraged where applicable.
Issue 1. The impact of the Competition Law on registered commercial agencies • UAE Federal Law No. 4 of 2012. • What is a restrictive agreement? • Is my registered commercial agency agreement a “restrictive agreement”? • One to watch: dealings between a registered commercial agent and its sub- distributors and customers.
Issue 1. The severability of the Consideration The parties’ submissions 41 The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s obligation under cl 10(c) of the Settlement Agreement to pay him the Consideration was a divisible or severable obligation. The obligation to pay for the TLD and TLI shares was independent of the obligation to pay for the TLP shares for the following reasons:
Issue 1. What is the appropriate language to implement the FCC’s transition plan for: (1) switching; (2) high-capacity loops; and (3) dedicated transport as detailed in the FCC’s TRRO, issued February 4, 2005?
Issue 1. What is the required standard of proof in the circumstances of a no case submission having been made without putting the Defendant to an election? [38] The general rule is that a judge ought not to rule on a submission of no case to answer unless the party making it elects to call no evidence. This principle arose from Alexander v Rayson11, Xxxxxx v Raglan Building Co Ltd12 and Graham v Chorley Borough Council13. Therefore, the relevant test to be applied in circumstances where a Defendant has elected not to call any evidence is whether or not a Claimant has established his/her case by the evidence called on a balance of probabilities. A Claimant may establish his claim on a balance of probabilities by establishing no more than a weak prima facie case which may then be strengthened to the necessary standard of proof by the adverse inferences to be drawn from the Defendant's election not to call any evidence: see Xxxxxx Ltd v Kythira Investments Ltd and Another14. [39] However, notwithstanding this established principle, the Court has the discretion to rule on a submission of no case to answer notwithstanding the fact that the party making the submission has not been put to his election. This arose in Xxxxxx v Xxxxxxxxxx Xxxx Xxxxxxx00 where the Deputy High Court Judge stated that- “Given the requirements of the ‘overriding objective’ to deal with the case expeditiously and fairly, allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources and taking account of the need to allot resources to other cases 11 [1936] 1 KB 169 12 [1941] 3 All ER 332 13 [2006] EWCA Civ 92 14 (2003) EWCA Civ 1794 15 The Times 29 July 1999 and acting in a way designed to save expense, it did seem to me that I would be entitled to adopt a rather more flexible approach to the kind of submission made than might have been the case prior to the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court has considerable power under the Civil Procedure Rules to dictate how a case is to be managed both pre-trial and at the trial. Rule 3.1(2)(m) gives the court power: “to take any other step or make any other order for the purpose of managing the case and furthering the overriding objective” over and above the specific orders and directions specified earlier in that rule. In my judgment, therefore, the court does have the power to hear a submission of this nature without putting the defendant to its election”. [Emphasis added] [40] Xxxxx XX in Xxxxx x Xxxxx Engineering16 stated that where a ...
Issue 1. What is the “matter” in respect of which this litigation has been brought?