Sentences with phrase «claim against appellants»

Dr. Mann has transgressed scientific norms and offended First Amendment principles by bringing a defamation claim against Appellants for their pointed criticism of his scientific methodology.

However the respondent's claim against the appellant is not derived from the clients» claims, and is rather an independent cause of action.

The respondent brought a public procurement claim against the appellant NDA, in connection...

The respondent brought a public procurement claim against the appellant NDA, in connection with its unsuccessful bid for a contract for services to decommission sites previously used for nuclear generation.

Not exact matches

«Requiring the banks to pay treble damages to every plaintiff who ended up on the wrong side of an independent Libor ‐ denominated derivative swap would, if appellants» allegations were proved at trial, not only bankrupt 16 of the world's most important financial institutions, but also vastly extend the potential scope of antitrust liability in myriad markets where derivative instruments have proliferated,» the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York said in the ruling.A U.S. appeals court on Monday revived private antitrust litigation accusing major banks of conspiring to manipulate the Libor benchmark interest rate, in a big setback for their defense against investors» claims of market - rigging.

Legislation: The appellant is a regulator in Quebec that was pursuing an ethics inquiry against a claims adjuster working for the respondent.

In this case, the finding against the appellant's credibility pervades the judge's rejection of his claim for greater damages.

The representative of the appellant argues that the judgment of the original court which acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Japanese court in an action of the appellee who is a Japanese national claiming divorce in the present case against the appellant who has a nationality of the German Democratic Republic is against the law.

While an insurance contract can be said to contemplate potential accidents, any claim for underinsured, uninsured or unidentified coverage «only arises in the aftermath of the tort and its application is conditional on the outcome of the appellant's claim against the tortfeasors,» the decision notes.

[1] The appellant, who is a lawyer, brought an action in Small Claims Court against the defendant seeking damages in the amount of $ 14,933.22 for breach of contract.

The appellant submits that he has three grounds of appeal: that the chambers judge erred in concluding that the damages could not be quantified; that the judge erred in dismissing the claim when the appellant already had two default judgments against the defendants; and that the judge erred by dismissing the claim on his own motion without notice to the appellant...

Jay J summarised that argument at [29] as follows: «For the purposes of the discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal and the County Court — and here the focus must be on the claims against the NMC — it was necessary for the appellant to state that she had been struck off since that would found her claim for damages and moreover the longer that she was struck off the greater would be the damages.

A majority of the Court of Appeal (Justices Bruce McDonald and Barbara Lea Veldhuis) upheld the case management judge's decision striking the appellant's statement of claim in relation to a motor vehicle accident and issuing an order for costs against him.

Thus the Supreme Court held that the policy of «deport first; appeal later» is a violation of human rights as an appeal against a deportation order by reference to a claim in respect of private and family life under ECHR, art 8 should be effective, and this means there must be an opportunity for appellants to give live evidence to assist the tribunal.

The Court of Appeal determined that the effect of the order under appeal was to «permanently foreclose» the Appellant from obtaining a determination of its claims against the personal defendants on their merits — a result that amounted to an injustice.

4 Mar. 28, 2018)(unpublished), respondents filed cross-claims for breach of contract, indemnity, and fraud against appellants, with respondents winning on their cross-claims except for the fraud claim to the extent of $ 1,311,772.

[9] In respect of the second requirement, the material facts pleaded in the statement of claim against the personal respondent indicate that he was acting on behalf of the corporate respondent when he terminated the appellant's employment.

In addition, the motion judge made a finding that there was no fraudulent concealment because the Appellants were aware of the essential facts giving rise to a claim against the Respondents.

We agree with the submission of counsel for the respondents that the relationship was such that the parties could not have contemplated that the appellant could make claims against the personal respondent arising from her dismissal that she could not make against the corporate respondent.

The Court held that the finding that the Appellants were aware of the essential facts giving rise to a claim against the Respondents was not a finding of discoverability.

The second was an action against Maroun and Cobra Hanna («Hanna») in relation to which the appellant claimed that the lawyers failed to take proper steps to enforce a payment agreement relating to a prior judgment against Hanna and failed to advise the appellant of the requirement to make full and frank disclosure when applying for a Mareva injunction, leading to the appellant having to accept an improvident settlement.

She subsequently obtained a consent order adding the individual appellants, all directors of Local 773, as defendants, and amended the statement of claim to plead that that the individual respondents were jointly and severally liable for her claim as against Local 773.

Secondly, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to grant judgment against the individual appellants on the claim against them for breach of trust and conversion, as this was also not for «a debt or liquidated demand in money.»

The appellants» evidence met the air of reality test and demonstrated an arguable defence on the merits in relation to the issues of whether the respondent's action was statute - barred, whether the rate of interest claimed was sustainable and whether there was any claim for breach of trust against the individual appellants.

On May 18, 2012, the Respondents filed a notice of civil claim and filed a certificate of pending litigation («CPL») against the Appellant's Robert's Creek property.

[47] The Reimbursement Agreement binds the appellant to make the repayment called for in the Plan, hence, repayment of a portion of any lump sum cash payment made upon or contingent upon resolution of a claim for compensation made against a Third Party.

Romanova v Sloutsker: for the appellant Russian journalist on behalf of Media Law Defence Initiative in her challenge to Court of Appeal against jurisdiction judgment -LRB-[2015] EWHC 545 (QB)-RRB- permitting the libel claim of a Russian oligarch to be brought in the English courts.

Three witnesses (the only witnesses in the case who had identified the appellant as the gunman) claimed that they were in fear for their lives if it became known that they had given evidence against Davis.

Plaintiff - Appellant Richard Lee Pollard, a federal inmate, appeals the district court's order dismissing his Eighth Amendment claims against employees of a private corporation operating a federal prison under contract with the Bureau of Prisons.

Speaking for the court, LeBel J. stated that the appropriate remedy for the appellant would be to apply for leave to pursue a claim against the exempt property pursuant to s. 69.4 of the BIA.

The appellants submitted that the jury instructions proceeded on the wrong legal understanding of causation in the context of a claim for delayed medical diagnosis and treatment against multiple tortfeasors.

The appellant was required to obtain leave to commence any proceeding against the respondents, pursuant to the February 13, 2015 order of Varpio J. Justice Gareau properly denied leave when the claims could not possibly succeed because of the expiry of limitation periods.

The appellant chose to make very serious allegations against West Face, maintain those allegations in the face of substantial evidence refuting the allegations, and in the end «utterly failed» to substantiate any of the claims.

The respondent was the plaintiff in the underlying action who subsequently entered into two agreements with the defendant, H&M Combustion Services Ltd. («H&M») in 2011 and 2016, to indemnify H&M from any exposure in the litigation in exchange for the assignment of its rights to the plaintiff in pursuing a third party claim that H&M commenced against the appellant.