Sentences with phrase «claim at common law»

It was held that the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty were no more than the equitable counterparts of the claims at common law and that:

Not exact matches

They «allege their businesses have been placed at risk due to the cybersecurity incident and generally assert various common law claims such as claims for negligence and breach of contract, as well as, in some cases, statutory claims.»

«These claims are common, but they're myths,» said Neil M. Richards, JD, privacy law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.

Except as expressly provided herein, any claim, dispute or controversy (whether based upon contract; tort, intentional or otherwise; constitution; statute; common law; or equity and whether pre-existing, present or future), including initial claims, counter-claims, cross-claims and thirdparty claims, arising from or relating to (i) the Card; (ii) any service relating to the Card; (iii) the marketing of the Card; (iv) this Cardholder Agreement, including the validity, enforceability, interpretation, scope, or application of the Agreement and this arbitration provision (except for the prohibition on class or other non-individual claims, which shall be for a court to decide); and (v) any other agreement or instrument relating to the Card or any such service («Claim») shall be decided, upon the election of you or the Bank (or Green Dot Corporation or the Bank's agents, employees, successors, representatives, affiliated companies, or assigns), by binding arbitration pursuant to this arbitration provision and the applicable rules and procedures of the arbitration administrator in effect at the time the Claim is fclaim, dispute or controversy (whether based upon contract; tort, intentional or otherwise; constitution; statute; common law; or equity and whether pre-existing, present or future), including initial claims, counter-claims, cross-claims and thirdparty claims, arising from or relating to (i) the Card; (ii) any service relating to the Card; (iii) the marketing of the Card; (iv) this Cardholder Agreement, including the validity, enforceability, interpretation, scope, or application of the Agreement and this arbitration provision (except for the prohibition on class or other non-individual claims, which shall be for a court to decide); and (v) any other agreement or instrument relating to the Card or any such service («Claim») shall be decided, upon the election of you or the Bank (or Green Dot Corporation or the Bank's agents, employees, successors, representatives, affiliated companies, or assigns), by binding arbitration pursuant to this arbitration provision and the applicable rules and procedures of the arbitration administrator in effect at the time the Claim is fClaim») shall be decided, upon the election of you or the Bank (or Green Dot Corporation or the Bank's agents, employees, successors, representatives, affiliated companies, or assigns), by binding arbitration pursuant to this arbitration provision and the applicable rules and procedures of the arbitration administrator in effect at the time the Claim is fClaim is filed.

This is obviously a different standard and each case should be looked at under its specific facts to determine whether it falls under a statutory punitive damages claim or a common - law punitive damages claim.

Since EE's right to terminate was exercised independently of any alleged breach, its claim for damages for loss of the contract at common law therefore failed.

Judgments from jurisdictions including the USA, Canada, and most European countries are registrable only at common law and not under Part 72 and therefore, it was previously thought, service out could not be granted for enforcement claims based on such judgments.

The employee brought a wrongful dismissal claim against her former employer, claiming entitlement to reasonable notice at common law.

In each of these situations the relevant human rights code is engaged not because of the nature of the legal relationship, or the fact that there were two legally distinct and identifiable parties at common law, but rather because the claim related to an area of activity covered by the Code and the claimant was able to show a nexus or link between him or herself, the social area and the allegedly discriminatory treatment.

The public trust doctrine has not been widely discussed in Canadian case law with the only significant mention being by the Supreme Court of Canada in British Columbia v. Canadian Forest Products Ltd., 2004 SCC 38 at para. 74 where Binnie J. acknowledged that «The notion that there are public rights in the environment that reside in the Crown has deep roots in the common law» (however, the majority decision ultimately took a conservative approach to not allow the Crown to succeed in a general claim for damages for «environmental loss» [caused by a negligently undetected controlled burn of slashing and other waste by a logging company] in the absence of a statutory scheme permitting such a claim).

Applying the common - law «interest stops rule» normally applied in Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act proceedings, Justice Newbould ruled that post-filing interest was not payable on the Crossover Bonds.5 Justice Newbould began his reasons with reference to the «fundamental tenet of insolvency law that all debts shall be pari passu and all unsecured creditors [shall] receive equal treatment».6 Justice Newbould found that the status quo with respect to unsecured creditors should be maintained as at the date of Nortel's filing and that to permit certain claims to grow disproportionately to others during the CCAA stay period would violate the status quo.

She claims that this fell far below the amounts to which she has a right at common law.

In our view, the principle that a litigant should be able to see and hear all the evidence which is seen and heard by the court determining his case is so fundamental, so embedded in the common law, that, in the absence of parliamentary authority, no judge should override it, at any rate in relation to an ordinary civil claim, unless (perhaps) all parties to the claim agree otherwise.

In my view, there is no room remaining at law for a common law claim for a finding of constructive dismissal in circumstances where a temporary layoff has been rolled out in accordance with the terms of the ESA.

Pursuant to section 24 (1) of the Limitation Act 1980, the limitation period to commence a claim to enforce a foreign judgment at common law is six years from the date of the foreign judgment sought to be recognised and enforced.

However, they claimed that — because of the extent of its control of GM Canada — GM US was a «franchisor's associate» under the Act and was bound by the duty of good faith under section 3 of the Act and at common law.

In order to recognise and enforce a judgment at common law, the party seeking enforcement (the claimant) must commence a new claim (by issuing a Claim Form) as one would for any other cclaim (by issuing a Claim Form) as one would for any other cClaim Form) as one would for any other claimclaim.

I don't even understand the claim (basic 1L lesson — at common law and in equity, courts make policy judgments), so I'm curious what motivates it.

Taft is skilled at prosecuting and defending complex cases involving environmental litigation involving the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), similar state statutes, class actions and common law claims.

This is not the position in England and Wales, where claims for pleural plaques alone will not succeed, and was not the position at common law in Scotland, prior to the Act.

In addition to common law negligent misrepresentation claims, they make a claim based on the new statutory cause of action found at s. 138.3 of the OSA, which can only be commenced with leave of the court.

This order applies to claims which give rise to the following common or related issues of fact or law (which issues may fall to be amended at a later date):

The Specific Claims Tribunal determined Williams Lake had established the validity of the claim against the federal Crown: there were pre-emptive purchases of the lands by settlers, in contravention of colonial policy and law; such contraventions constituted a breach of a legal obligation, pursuant to colonial legislation pertaining to reserved lands; B.C. failed to act honourably and was in breach of its fiduciary duties at common law, by failing to put the Indian interest in settlement lands ahead of settlers» interests; Canada was liable for B.C.'s pre-Confederation breaches of legislation and fiduciary duty, pursuant to the Act; and Canada also breached its post-Confederation fiduciary duties by failing to provide reserve lands to Williams Lake.

(1) whether the onset of deep vein thrombosis («DVT») sustained during the course of, or arising out of, international carriage by air, whether as a result of an act and / or omission of the carrier or otherwise, is capable, in principle, of being «an accident» causing bodily injury within the maening of Article 17 of the Warsaw Convention, (2) whether a claim against an air carrier for personal injury or death alleged to have been sustained during the course of, or as a result of, international carriage by air can be brought at common law in the alternative or in addition to a claim under the applicable version of the Warsaw Convention, (3) whether the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to claims brought against air carriers under the Warsaw Convention and / or at common law in relation to personal injury or death alleged to have been suffered by a passenger during the course of, or as a result of, international carriage by air and if so with what result.

Both appellants (Austin and Saxby) claimed damages for distress and also aggravated and exemplary damages, at common law in the tort of false imprisonment and under the Human Rights Act 1998, s 7 for alleged unlawful detention, contrary to their Art 5 Convention rights, essentially arguing that they should have been released from the police cordon much earlier than they were.

The court had no power at common law to order a «closed material procedure» for the whole or part of the trial of a civil claim for damages.

A lengthy statement of claim advanced numerous allegations including fraudulent breach of contract at common law as well as breaches of fiduciary duty said to consist in deliberate and dishonest under - accounting.

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-.

[226] At common law, a co-tenant is entitled to claim occupation rent when he or she has been ousted from property.

He has handled a variety of major commercial cases in courts and before arbitrators throughout the country, defending and prosecuting RICO, securities fraud and common law fraud claims at trial and on appeal.

The two basic requirements at common law for a derivative action are: - that the alleged wrong or breach of duty is one that is incapable of being ratified by a simple majority of the members; and - that the alleged wrongdoers are in control of the company, so that the company, which is the «proper claimant» can not claim by itself.

That broad common law principle was subject to an anomalous, that was, unprincipled, exception regarding claims for interest losses by way of damages for breach of a contract to pay a debt: in London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co [1893] AC 429 it was decided that at common law a court had no power to award interest by way of damages for the late payment of a debt.

While there are no laws prohibiting you into filing insurance claims, but common sense would tell us that if you do so, even with the slightest dent in your car, you are signaling your insurer that you are a high - risk driver, even if you are not the at - fault driver.

The report concludes that the conditions of registration exceed those that, on a prima facie basis, satisfy a claim to native title at common law.

ALSO, Brokerages are businesses and although the practice over the last 50 years has been to ignore common law, a simple Small Claims court decision for the Co-Operating Brokerage against the Listing Brokerage for failure to collect monies owed as a result of MLS rules and regs and forms, would be a cheap alternative to recover at least $ 10,000.