(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent

Plaintiff (respondent) commenced an action against defendant (appellant) and McElhanney.

The Court of Appeal considered the evidence in respect of each appellant.

Rather, the appellant has an erroneous or different understanding of its merit.

As to the 5th appellant, the Court of Appeal found that he could not have expected to obtain a good arbitrage position' (as the appellant had so claimed) if the model was an outdated one.

It is standard practice for staff of the Unit who are called upon to discuss a situation with an appellant or potential appellant and or his or her counsel to remind their interlocutors that they represent the Administration.

The appellant sought to rely on the arbitration clause after a dispute arose between the parties.

Reports of the Joint Appeals Board shall be routinely sent to the Ombudsman unless the appellant objects.

The respondent (hereinafter the appellant ) appealed against an order of the Trial Division declaring a foreign arbitral award enforceable.

Consequently, the appellant has failed to discharge the burden of proof and therefore the relevant ground of annulment is dismissed .

The defendant (appellant), Sims, entered into a construction contract containing an arbitration clause with the plaintiff (respondent), the City of Prince George.

The dispute related to the question whether the appellant was liable to pay demurrage, by virtue of provisions contained in a charter party.

On appeal, the appellant relied on article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to establish a right to freedom of movement.

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent as stated above, the Administrative Law Unit represents the respondent at all stages of the appeals process.

As to the 4th appellant, his act of late checking if the transactions were in order, confirmed that he had doubts about the correctness of the price.

The appellant argued that its statements had not been not adequately taken into account by the arbitrators in the settlement of the dispute, which was referred to them.

The appellant relied upon articles 34 (2) (a) (iii) and 36 (1) (a) (iii) MAL, alleging that the dispute did not fall within the terms of submission to arbitration.

In both cases, an appellant mother made submissions that her right to freedom of movement had been disregarded in the decisions of lower courts in relation to parenting orders.

After the respondent claimed that the arbitration clause could not be resorted to, and, therefore, refused to name an arbitrator, the appellant brought an action in the High Court .

Leo Echegaray, G.R. No. 117472, June 25, 1996, The law has made it inevitable under the circumstances of this case that the accused appellant face the supreme penalty of death.

The Appeals Chamber and the pre appeal judge issued several pre appeal decisions and two decisions on motions for admission of additional evidence under rule 115 filed by the appellant.

In U v U, the appellant sought orders from the Family Court allowing her to take her daughter to live in India where the parents both had friends and family.

In order to establish his allegation, the appellant should have proved that his case was the same as that of the cases in respect of which the relevant agreement was applied.

The Court of Appeal considered that the new evidence had no bearing on the matter in issue as defined by the appellant itself both in the lower courts and in its appeal factum.

Defendant (appellant) applied for an order under Section 15 of the Commercial Arbitration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1985 (2nd Supplement), Chapter 17, which enacts Article 8 MAL, for a stay of the action.

In R. v. Advance Cutting Coring Ltd, the appellant contractors and construction workers were charged with hiring employees who did not have the required competency certificates, or with working in the industry without such certificates, contrary to the Quebec Construction Act.

In its submission of 26 April 2004, the State party endorses the approach of the Supreme Court judgement of 26 March 1999, which stated inter alia, the burden of proof of any discriminatory or unequal treatment is on the appellant.

The appellant is seeking a review of the appeal judgement of 9 July 2004 (see para. 29) on the ground that the prosecution failed to disclose to him alleged exculpatory statements by witnesses, while it disclosed them in another case.

As to the 2nd appellant, even though no evidence pointed to his direct actual knowledge, the Court confirmed the first judge's findings that he was clearly shutting his eyes to the truth and snapping up a bargain when he entertained doubts as to its correctness.

Should the person whose citizenship is revoked mount an appeal, the government is not required to disclose to the appellant the evidence on which it has based its decision. Though governments are bound to make mistakes from time to time in such cases, judges or tribunals will be unable to probe the evidence put before them.

Article 476 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the appellant (or process agent) should be thus advised at least 24 hours before the case is to be heard by the clerk of the prosecutor's office either orally or by phone at the address listed in the appeal document, with a note to this effect being entered in the case file.

On 27 September 2004, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Nyiramasuhuko's request for reconsideration of the appeal decision on the ground that the reason advanced by the appellant that certification had been granted before the Appeals Chamber's decision of 5 July 2004 and that she had presented arguments on the admissibility of the evidence of witnesses did not constitute good cause within the meaning of rule 116 (A).7