Sentences with phrase «against claimants»

... any lack of proof or inference as to what the position was in the Goldfields in 1829 tells against the claimants, who bear the onus of proving all the elements of their claims.

Developed and wrote decision explaining ruling and informed interested parties of results; participated in court proceedings against claimants attempting to obtain benefits through fraud.

• Testified in courts against claimants previously investigated.

Here, the false accusations to the police were a continuation of the pre-termination campaign against the claimants and so the tribunal had been entitled to take everything into account.

It stipulates that costs orders against claimants may be enforced to their full extent where the court finds, on the balance of probabilities, that the claim was «fundamentally dishonest».

Keen to be innovative, Nigel, by example, has developed the effective use of pre-action disclosure applications against claimants and their solicitors who fail in their duty to abide by the CPR and provide timely disclosure.

He has helped try cases as diverse as a multi-week medical malpractice trial involving the death of a three year old child and an arbitration against claimants who sought millions of dollars in property loss and punitive damages.

In addition, we now live in a climate where tribunals will not only strike out spurious and unreasonable claims but also make significant costs awards against claimants engaging in such vexatious activity.»

In 1994, the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled against the claimants in the case Native Women's Association of Canada v. Canada.

The trial judge ruled against claimants, and the B.C.C.A. decision upheld the decision.

Parallel proceedings against Cayman Island domiciled funds and an application for security for costs against the claimants.

The indication is that if the model claim form is not used, provided late and either not completed by the claimant or poorly completed, the Tribunal may rely on this as justification to award costs against claimants.

The development of the law to balance this unfairness by partly reversing the burden of proof (but still requiring prima facie evidence) came about to address unfairness against claimants and not, as implied by Ms Giles, to simply make it easier to claim.

The trustee must identify and then take title to the trust's assets, keep accurate records, report to the current beneficiaries, execute and settle all transactions, protect and insure the property and defend the trust against claimants.

Osborne's forecasts of continued austerity in the next parliament, a media and public discourse which continues to harden public opinion against claimants, and an ongoing failure to fix underlying causes of social security spend — by building houses and creating well - paying jobs — all mean that our social security system is heading in the direction of much more short - termism.

Detractors further state that there is no reliable way to quantify when human rights abuses are severe enough to make a country «unsafe», and that the DCO list discriminates against claimants according to country of origin, which is contrary to international refugee law.

New EI policies, designed to hurt rather than help; new appeal mechanisms, rigged against claimants; and employee cuts everywhere, made without rhyme or reason across the public service, as the Parliamentary Budget Office has just reported.

He added: «The incident in question took place in 2008; by July 2017 no disciplinary charges had been laid against the claimant.

In addition, the Assembly removes penalty and interest charges as well as the ability to file with a county clerk judgments against a claimant for monies received because of false statement or representations.

The costs to defend the organiser against the claimant included a legal defence and time away from work.

The matter was thereafter adjourned pending an application by the insurers (added as second defendant) to seek wasted costs as against the claimant's solicitor.

HHJ Collender QC, who made the costs decision, placed considerable reliance on the following facts in making a wasted costs order against the claimant solicitor:

If a Claimant unreasonably refuses settlement offers by the Defendant or refuses genuine offers to mediate, because the Claimant wants their day in court, it is likely that the Judge will make adverse costs orders against the Claimant (i.e. financially penalise the Claimant).

Next, the Respondent sought an order that if he ever incur a child support obligation, his liability should be offset against the Claimant's household income, including the income of all persons living under the same roof.

What appeared to be a «bad day at the office» for the SFO was compounded by the fact that the Court had declined to make an Order for costs against the Claimant.

Arbitration — Claim in arbitration rejected and costs awarded against claimant — Appeal against arbitration award for serious irregularity — Application by defendant for security for the costs of the application and security for the costs award — Effect of claim being funded by litigation funders — Arbitration Act 1996, sections 68 (2)(d), 70 (5) and 70 (6).

The claim was brought against the Claimant's employer (even though it was an individual that was alleged to have been the harasser) on the basis that they were responsible for her actions (known as «vicarious liability»).

If a Claimant Solicitor fails to serve the proceedings correctly and this is fatal to the claim then the Claimant should be advised to seek independent legal advice with a view to bringing a professional negligence claim against the Claimant's solicitors.

The public judgment could, and in fact did, make clear that the allegations against the Claimant had not been proven, that he denied them and that he had not been afforded any opportunity to contest them.

Simler J rejected the proposition that the order was justified because of the risk of the public misunderstanding that the allegations against the Claimant had not been investigated or proven and the devastating consequences which could flow from that.

Disclosure to the claimant's colleagues of the action (s) that the council intended to take against the claimant, contrary to the council's confidentiality policy.

In such circumstances, an order for costs may be enforced against the claimant.

The defendant's therefore claimed the cost of the investigation in the amount of $ 2,233.24 against the claimant under the terms of the offer (Tomas v. Mackie, 2015 BCSC 364).

Rabobank v Docker [2011] EqLR 580 The EAT rejected a challenge to the Judgment of the Employment Tribunal in which it found that the Bank had discriminated against the Claimant on grounds of his race.

Once the employee has established prima facie discrimination, the employer then has the opportunity to prove that it did not discriminate against the claimant, such as by demonstrating that the employer would experience undue hardship if it were to provide the employee with the accommodation sought.

This is the first step in the analysis by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (the «Tribunal») to determine whether the employer in fact discriminated against the claimant.

Cross Undertakings: a 7 - year non-cancellable policy covers damages and costs awarded against the claimant if it later transpires that the order was wrongly granted in the first instance.

The tribunal can only order security for costs against the claimant or counterclaimant.

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Employment Appeal Tribunal agreeing that the employer had discriminated against the Claimant by imposing the PCP requiring him to work late and not adjusting it to accommodate his disability.

Despite finding against the claimant, however, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to re-affirm the longstanding principle of law that it is the employer, not the employee, who is responsible for devising a safe system of work and that this extends to the giving of specific warnings about risk.

In the context of solicitors» disciplinary proceedings, the High Court in Baxendale - Walker v Middleton [2011] EWHC 998 (QB), [2011] All ER (D) 242 (Apr) struck out claims against parties involved in solicitors» disciplinary proceedings against the claimant, as the hearing was covered by judicial immunity and the claims amounted to a collateral attack upon the final decision.

Be sure to present the arguments for and against each claimant.

It is useful to quote key observations by Stadlen J [at paras 126 - 129]: «In my view, notwithstanding the absence in the FTPP proceedings of some of the statutory and non-statutory safeguards which apply to criminal proceedings... [I] n deciding whether it would be fair to admit the hearsay evidence, the requirements both of Article 6 and of the common law obliged the FTPP to take into account the absence of all those [safeguards]... [I] n my judgment, no reasonable panel in the position of the FTPP could have reasonably concluded that there were factors outweighing the powerful factors pointing against the admission of the hearsay evidence... The means by which the claimant can challenge the hearsay evidence are... not in my judgment capable of outweighing those factors... The reality would appear to be that the factor which the FTPP considered decisive in favour of admitting the hearsay evidence was the serious nature of the allegations against the claimant coupled with the public interest in investigating such allegations and the FTPP's duty to protect the public interest in protecting patients, maintaining public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of behaviour... However, that factor on its own does not in my view diminish the weight which must be attached to the procedural safeguards to which a person accused of such allegations is entitled both at common law and under Article 6... The more serious the allegation, the greater the importance of ensuring that the accused doctor is afforded fair and proper procedural safeguards.

If you do oppose it, you may also decide to make a counterclaim against the claimant (see below).

Provide information to describe your claim against the claimant.

However, on the particular facts of that case — where the chief detriment was a disciplinary hearing brought against the claimant who was dismissed internally — the tribunal had not been perverse in ruling a number of the alleged acts out of time at the preliminary hearing.

In Inline Logistics Ltd v UCI Logistics Ltd [2002] All ER (D) 435 (Mar), the court found that design documents had the necessary quality of confidence (though the case was decided against the claimant on other issues).

In R (Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751, [2008] All ER (D) 13 (Jul) the authority had obtained a demotion order against the claimant.

Judge Simmonds QC, no doubt anticipating the public interest in this case, and perhaps reflecting his own concern, granted permission for the claimant to appeal; he made no order for costs against the claimant as he had found for him on the two preliminary issues relating to breach and had accepted a significant proportion of the claimant's legal submissions.

Lady Hale agreed in holding against the claimant on this «relates to» point (and, ironically, was the only one to query whether or not the claimant was disabled at all) but she disagreed completely on the comparison point.