Sentences with phrase «as common law doctrines»

As far as common law doctrines go, though, this area is a little unsettled: the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom limited the immunity for expert witnesses in Jones v Kaney [2011] UKSC 13; [2011] 2 AC 398, departing from centuries of authority.

As common law doctrines evolve, sometimes their rationale, and proper application, can get lost; that can be because of just one «less than thoughtful» reported appellate decision.

Not exact matches

In a jurisdiction that has prided itself on the importance of «doctrine» in interpreting the law, the fact that the major French language university opts for content with the lowest common denominator, while a foreign owned commercial publisher offers an authoritative work by leading academics and legal practitioners, is a remarkable case of role reversal, as well as a reflection on how times have changed.

In a short judgment (concerned with the extent to which courts were bound by Privy Council decisions) Lord Neuberger said: «In a common law system, where the law is in some areas made, and the law is in virtually all areas developed, by judges, the doctrine of precedent, or as it is sometimes known stare decisis, is fundamental.

The striking difference was that while in a common law faculty, first year students are inundated with judgments, civil law students read a half - dozen judgments and mostly relied on a text, «doctrine» as civilians call it: a book that summarized the area of law, usually by the prof or another leading scholar.

[18] To the extent the doctrine of champerty and maintenance remains relevant in Canadian common law, even as means of protecting the courts and vulnerable litigants against abuses, its purpose is not and was never intended to be achieved by conferring on the courts the discretion to inquire into and approve or disapprove of a plaintiff's funding arrangements as a condition precedent to instituting or pursuing litigation.

It affirms that arbitrators should be given significant deference in how they deal with common law and equitable doctrines as long as the arbitrator is reasonably responding to the labour relations issue before them.»

Court decisions written hundreds of years ago form the basis for our common law system and are still used as tools to educate law students on legal doctrine.

The dual sovereignty doctrine is founded on the common law conception of crime as an offense against the sovereignty of the government.

In Willers v Joyce, Lord Neuberger said of the rules of precedent: «[4] In a common law system, where the law is in some areas made, and the law is in virtually all areas developed, by judges, the doctrine of precedent, or as it is sometimes known stare decisis, is fundamental.

The court also upheld State Farm's flood exclusion as applying to hurricane storm surge, and said that the anti-concurrent cause language in State Farm policies overturns a common law doctrine of property loss causation called «efficient proximate cause.»

The current doctrine of Aboriginal and Treaty rights has evolved to recognize the existence of Indigenous legal orders, but this recognition, as Larry Chartrand notes, is common law dependent.

(g) The KRG argued that the doctrine had to exist as a matter of «common law» and / or «customary international law» which was incorporated into the law of the UAE, Dubai and the DIFC and that it was absurd to suggest that it did not, but no case or article other than that of Professor Turki was produced.

These courses provide foreign - trained lawyers with a foundation in American common law doctrine as well as legal writing and research skills.

After canvassing judicial consideration and acceptance of CIP, as well as support for the doctrine in a leading text on the law of evidence, the Court of Appeal held that there was a sufficient common interest in the completion of the transaction in issue to find that privilege had not been waived.

The traditional doctrine that makes a person liable for harm inflicted by a domestic animal is referred to as «scienter» (the Latin word for «knowingly»), «common law strict liability,» and «the one bite rule.»

As she notes, however, the bar often loses to «the state» — meaning legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts applying common law doctrines.

The doctrine is of recent provenance and, as is the case with the common law, its development has not followed inexorably from an agreed set of first principles.

While the U.K. House of Lords thought it was necessary for U.K. society, the Australian High Court has so far declined to incorporate, into Australian common law, the material contribution to risk doctrine as an alternative method for proving causation in negligence.

In cases such as Pham, where citizenship was at issue, it is quite possible that an applicant will be able to claim EU - law rights (to which the doctrine of proportionality applies), Convention rights (to which proportionality also applies, subject to the additional limitation of the «margin of appreciation» at the European level and, perhaps, to a «discretionary area of judgment» domestically [2]-RRB- and the protection of the common law (certainly Wednesbury unreasonableness and, in some circumstances, the principle of legality [3]-RRB-.

The court relied heavily on the doctrine of stare decises to support its conclusion stating that «common - law decisions should stand as precedents for guidance in cases arising in the future» and «generally be followed in subsequent cases presenting the same legal problem.»

However, Virginia has codified the common - law doctrine of necessaries, which made a husband liable for his wife's necessary living expenses such as shelter, food and medical care.

The claimants submitted, inter alia, that the orders: (i) had been made without any prior consultation as to the principle, relying upon the common law duty to act fairly and / or the doctrine of procedural legitimate expectation; and (ii) were irrational on the basis that the reasons which had been put forward by the defendants in justification of the decision were inconsistent and contradictoryDyson LJ: The fact that, when conferring on the lord chancellor the power to prescribe court fees, parliament had decided whom he should consult before doing so, militated strongly against the idea that there should co-exist a common law duty to consult more widely (in the absence of a clear promise by the lord chancellor that there would be wider consultation and in the absence of any clear established practice of wider consultation).

In 1947, the Supreme Court recognized the work - product doctrine in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), as a common - law principle that prevents the legal profession from «performing its functions either without wits or on wits borrowed from the adversary.»

It was these values that led him, as a newly - appointed judge in the 1940s, to devise a legal doctrine which lawyers regarded as revolutionary, but which performed the elementary moral task of holding people to their promises - something which the commercially - oriented common law had found it expedient not to do.

The origin of the doctrine making an employer liable for negligent hiring, as well as negligent retention, arose out of the common law fellow - servant law which imposed a duty on employers to select employees who would not endanger fellow employees by their presence on the job.

It was argued above (98) that, within the common law doctrine of native title, the processes of recognition and extinguishment are posited as distinct and separate.

If the international law notion that inhabited land may be classified as terra nullius no longer commands general support, the doctrines of the common law which depends on the notion.can hardly be retained.

(76) What is argued in this section is that, even though terra nullius has been discarded as an international law doctrine, the recognition of native title does not require that the nexus between international law and the common law treatment of Indigenous people within the legal system of a sovereign state be discarded.

The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, and good faith in the fulfilment of the obligations assumed by States in accordance with the Charter, Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples, while recognizing the right of all peoples to be different, to consider themselves different, and to be respected as such, Affirming also that all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind, Affirming further that all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust, Reaffirming that indigenous peoples, in the exercise of their rights, should be free from discrimination of any kind, Concerned that indigenous peoples have suffered from historic injustices as a result of, inter alia, their colonization and dispossession of their lands, territories and resources, thus preventing them from exercising, in particular, their right to development in accordance with their own needs and interests, Recognizing the urgent need to respect and promote the inherent rights of indigenous peoples which derive from their political, economic and social structures and from their cultures, spiritual traditions, histories and philosophies, especially their rights to their lands, territories and resources, Recognizing also the urgent need to respect and promote the rights of indigenous peoples affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements with States, Welcoming the fact that indigenous peoples are organizing themselves for political, economic, social and cultural enhancement and in order to bring to an end all forms of discrimination and oppression wherever they occur, Convinced that control by indigenous peoples over developments affecting them and their lands, territories and resources will enable them to maintain and strengthen their institutions, cultures and traditions, and to promote their development in accordance with their aspirations and needs, Recognizing that respect for indigenous knowledge, cultures and traditional practices contributes to sustainable and equitable development and proper management of the environment, Emphasizing the contribution of the demilitarization of the lands and territories of indigenous peoples to peace, economic and social progress and development, understanding and friendly relations among nations and peoples of the world, Recognizing in particular the right of indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well - being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child, Considering that the rights affirmed in treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements between States and indigenous peoples are, in some situations, matters of international concern, interest, responsibility and character, Considering also that treaties, agreements and other constructive arrangements, and the relationship they represent, are the basis for a strengthened partnership between indigenous peoples and States, Acknowledging that the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (2) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2 as well as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, (3) affirm the fundamental importance of the right to self - determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, Bearing in mind that nothing in this Declaration may be used to deny any peoples their right to self - determination, exercised in conformity with international law, Convinced that the recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples in this Declaration will enhance harmonious and cooperative relations between the State and indigenous peoples, based on principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, non-discrimination and good faith, Encouraging States to comply with and effectively implement all their obligations as they apply to indigenous peoples under international instruments, in particular those related to human rights, in consultation and cooperation with the peoples concerned,