Search - 司法拍卖网 人民法院

.: — This appeal was heard together with the appeal in Court File No. ...

.] — per Lord Diplock, at page 326 The Abbot v. Philbin judgment was in no way put in question. ...

The second method of distinguishing Graham is the classical one — on the facts. ...

.: — This appeal raises the same issues of law as are raised in Court File No. ...

& P.E.I.R. 168, 211 A.P.R. 168 (P.E.I.C.A.) The principles were in our view best summarized by Lord Griffiths, speaking for the majority, in Ketteman v. ...

Estey, J. expanded upon this test of “ object and spirit" in his majority judgment in The Queen v. ...

There, a statutory tribunal had to construe the word “night” in a context which read: “... he is so severely disabled physically or mentally that he requires from another person, in connection with his bodily functions, frequent attention throughout the day and prolonged or repeated attention during the night...”. ...

However, the next question to be asked is — is that situation affected by the fact that the amounts held to be payable by the judgments of Judge Ferg might have been varied if the appeals had been successful in whole or in part? ...

[12] What is the line which separates the two classes of cases may be difficult to define, and each case must be considered according to its facts; the question to be determined being — Is the sum of the gain that has been made a mere en- hancement of value by realising a security, or is it a gain made in an operation of business in carrying out a scheme for profit-making? ...

PAYMENT The Government in consideration of this license, subject to the availability of funds, shall be obligated to pay the Contractor a total capital sum of $600,000 for the incorporation and use of said data, know-how and inventions in the construction and use by the Government of plants or facilities for said continuous manufacturing process, said total capital payment of $600,000 to be made as follows: One-half (%) on the effective date of Contract No 397; and the remaining one-half (2) upon acceptance of the data specifically called for in the aforesaid Contract No 397. ... In Desoutter Bros, Ltd v J E Hanger & Co, Ltd, [1936] 1 All ER 535, MacKinnon, J, relying on this statement, held that a lump sum payment in advance for a licence to use a patent, without regard to the extent of the anticipated use, was capital. ...