by way of case stated by one of the stipendiary magistrates sitting at Bow Street‚ before whom informations were preferred by police officers against the defendants‚ in each case that she ‘being a common prostitute‚ did solicit in a street for the purpose of prostitution‚ contrary to section 1 (1) of the Street Offences Act‚ 1959.’ The magistrate in each case found that the defendant was a common prostitute‚ that she had solicited and that the solicitation was in a street‚ and in each case fined the
Premium Contract
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION‚ PRETORIA CASE NO: CC113-2013 DATE: 2014-09-11‚ 12 In the matter between THE STATE and OSCAR LEONARD CARL PISTORIUS Accused BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE MASIPA ASSESSORS: ADV J HENZEN DU TOIT ADV T MAZIBUKO ON BEHALF OF THE STATE: ADV GERRIE C NEL ADV ANDREA JOHNSON ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENCE: ADV BARRY ROUX SC ADV KENNY OLDWAGE INTERPRETERS: MS F HENDRICKS JUDGMENT VOLUME 42 (Page 3280 - 3351) iAfrica
Premium
Arbiters and the commission. (a) The Labor Arbiters shall have theoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction to hear and decide within thirty (30) working days after submission of the case by the parties for decision‚ the following cases involving are workers‚ whether agricultural or non-agricultural: 1. Unfair labor practice cases; 2. Those that workers may file involving wages‚ hours of work and other terms and conditions of employment; 3. All money claims of workers‚ including those based on non-payment
Premium Employment Trade union National Labor Relations Act
illegality‚ and no right of action exists in respect of anything arising out of the transaction. In such a case the maxim In pari delicto‚ portior est conditio defendentis applies‚ and the test for determining whether an action lies is to see whether the plaintiff can make out his claim without relying on the illegal transaction to which he was a party. Halsbury 2nd Ed. Vol. VII p. 173. Case referred to Bowmakers Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd (1945) 1 KB 65; (1944) 2 All ER 579 1953 1 MLJ 239
Premium Pleading Complaint Automobile
www.hbr.org H B R CAS E ST U D Y AND COMMENTARY Who is responsible for assuring technology success at Lenox? Five commentators offer expert advice. The IT System That Couldn’t Deliver by Byron Reimus • Reprint 97308 Lenox’s IT system is in trouble. Who will fix it‚ and how? H B R CAS E ST U D Y The IT System That Couldn’t Deliver by Byron Reimus COPYRIGHT © 1997 HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. “Distribution is the name of the game‚” Lenox CEO and president
Premium Management Business school Harvard Business School
GSBA521B Term III‚ Fall 2012 Professor Ku Case—Blaine Kitchenware‚ Inc.: Capital Structure Assignment: Your team’s task is to recommend to the Board of Blaine Kitchenware (BKI) whether the firm should undertake the leveraged recap. In doing so‚ please address the four questions below. Teams 1-6: your task is to recommend for a leveraged recap with quantitative and qualitative support Teams 7-13: your task is to recommend against a leveraged recap with quantitative and qualitative support
Premium Weighted average cost of capital Capital structure Finance
Supreme Court of the Philippines The Supreme Court of the Philippines (Filipino: Kataas-taasang Hukuman ng Pilipinas) is the country’s highest judicial court‚ as well as the court of last resort. The court consists of 14 Associate Justices and 1 Chief Justice. Pursuant to the Constitution‚ the Supreme Court has "administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof".[1] The Supreme Court complex occupies the corner of Padre Faura Street and Taft Avenue in Manila‚ with the main building
Premium Law Supreme Court of the United States Court
Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC G.R. No. L-13954 August 12‚ 1959 GENARO GERONA‚ ET AL.‚ petitioners-appellants‚ vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF EDUCATION‚ ET AL.‚ respondents-appellees. K.V. Felon and Hayed C. Cavington for appellant. Office of the Solicitor General Edilberto Barot and Solicitor Conrado T. Limcaoco for appellees. MONTEMAYOR‚ J.: Petitioners are appealing the decision of the Court of First Instance of Masbate dismissing their complaint
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Religion Conscientious objector
specifically for this text that supplements this case. 1. Hard Rock’s 10 Decisions: This is early in the course to dis- cuss these in depth‚ but still a good time to get the students engaged in the 10 OM decisions around which the text is structured. Product design: Hard Rock’s tangible product is food and like any tangible product it must be designed‚ tested‚ and “costed out.” The intangible product includes the music‚ memorabilia‚ and service. Quality: The case mentions the quality survey as an overt
Premium Management Cost Supply chain
The case study‚ “Beijing EAPS Consulting‚ Inc.” in the Custom Book‚ (2011)‚ examines the project management structure of the Beijing EAPS Consulting (BEC) company. This case study also addressesabout project plan itself and how the co-workers are struggling with this communication between bothmangers. This project plan has demonstrated many strengths and weakness. The one thing that theproject plan needs put into action is safeguards to insure that the project is completed on time.BEC has taken
Premium Project management Organizational structure Management