Not exact matches
It relates to the facts
of Mr Farley's own
case — that he had been unable to challenge the secretary
of state's
jurisdiction to
assume jurisdiction on his former wife's assessment.
The Indemnified Party shall have the right to employ separate counsel in any such action and to participate in the defense thereof, but the fees and expenses
of such counsel shall not be at the expense
of the Indemnifying Party if the Indemnifying Party has
assumed the defense
of the action with counsel reasonably satisfactory to the Indemnified Party; provided that the fees and expenses
of such counsel shall be at the expense
of the Indemnifying Party if (i) the employment
of such counsel has been specifically authorized in writing by the Indemnifying Party or (ii) the named parties to any such action (including any impleaded parties) include both the Indemnified Party or parties and the Indemnifying Party and, in the judgement
of counsel for the Indemnified Party, it is advisable for the Indemnified Party or parties to be represented by separate counsel (in which
case the Indemnifying Party shall not have the right to
assume the defense
of such action on behalf
of the Indemnified Party or parties, it being understood, however, that the Indemnifying Party shall not, in connection with any one such action or separate but substantially similar or related actions in the same
jurisdiction arising out
of the same general allegations or circumstances, be liable for the reasonable fees and expenses
of more than one separate firm
of attorneys for the Indemnified Party or parties.
Second, should this question be answered in the affirmative, the referring court asked the CJEU to shed light on the procedural consequences (question 4) and whether in that
case the referring court can
assume jurisdiction under Article 31, which requires a «real connecting link» between the subject matter
of the measure sought and the territorial
jurisdiction of the Member State (questions 5 and 6).
On a motion opposing the long arm
jurisdiction of the Ontario court, the defendants attempted to rely on Van Breda to extend its holding beyond
assuming jurisdiction to decide a
case on the merits.
In addition, Pilot said that the U.K. order should not be enforced because Pilot had not been properly served with notice
of the U.K. proceedings and because the U.K. court lacked a sufficiently real and substantial connection to the
case to
assume jurisdiction.
It replaced the House
of Lords as the highest appellate court in the United Kingdom (other than for Scottish Criminal
cases) in October 2009 and also
assumed the devolution
jurisdiction of the Judicial Committee
of the Privy Council.
«(1) If it appears to a coroner that, in the
case of a body lying within his district, an inquest ought to be held into the death but it is expedient that the inquest should be held by some other coroner, he may request that coroner to
assume jurisdiction to hold the inquest...»
I'll comment since a practitioner will know better than I, but I would suspect that in the
cases where you are suing for compensation or damages for distress or whatever (
assuming that is a real claim), you would submit the complaint stating that there, in fact, was emotional distress (or whatever the standard is under the law
of your
jurisdiction) and leave it at that.
If a competent lawyer would have never brought this
case because
of the
jurisdiction issue (or would have withdrawn sooner), then Overtimer's client was hurt, as was your client (
assuming you don't work for free), and the court system, which had to expend resources.
If it is impossible to establish where a child usually lives (as in the
case of refugees), the EU country where the child is present automatically
assumes jurisdiction.
In some
cases and
jurisdictions, the court
assumes that relocation is not in the «best interest
of the child.»
«Although appellant argues that this
case presents an issue
of first impression because the family court relied on «parental alienation syndrome» as a factual basis for
assuming jurisdiction, we believe that petitioner properly responds that the family court's factual findings are amply supported by the record and that the term «parental alienation syndrome» is merely a way
of describing appellant's actions as they related to the circumstances
of this
case.