Sentences with phrase «claimant did»

The claimant did not do so.

Basic logic dictates that proof that a claimant did not ordinarily reside in Ontario at the time of the accident in question, as conceded in this case, necessarily means that the claimant's ordinary residence was outside the jurisdiction of Ontario at the relevant time.

The issues included whether the defendants would be entitled to refuse to indemnify the bank under cl 2 (c) in different circumstances such as when the personal injury claimant did not exist, his signature was forged, or the loan agreement was void under the principle of non est factum.

The judge held that the claimant had a reasonable prospect of success in his claim, and indeed the better side of the argument; that, although there was a good arguable case for English law and jurisdiction, the claimant did not have the better argument — in respect of jurisdiction, the defendant had much the better side of the argument; and that since it was common ground that if the contracts had been made, they had been made in England, the English court had a basis for exercising its discretion to take jurisdiction under CPR 6.20 (5)(a)(now 6BPD.3 — 3.1 (6)(a).

However, the claimant did have an arguable case to be tried and recourse against his solicitors would not provide a sufficient remedy because the claimant sought an interest in the matrimonial property rather than a financial award.

«This could be a significant disadvantage in respect of material published online as it would mean that if the claimant did not bring an action within the limitation period (for whatever reason), the defamatory material could remain accessible indefinitely.»

It is also clear that claimant did not bring the summary trial application to resolve her claim for spousal support in this case.

It is not disputed that the claimant did not seek interim spousal support at any time after commencing this proceeding in 2003.

The Judge further held that the Claimant did not have sufficient standing to bring the claim as her own complaint against the University related to events that occurred in 2011 and there had as yet been no application by the University of its new Policy.

This point was then further considered by Slade J in Ashby where, although again a strike out was refused, she looked for a wider principle in these cases and purported to find it in the conflict of laws area of forum non conveniens, namely that an important factor in deciding whether to strike out under s 2 (3) is why the claimant did not bring tribunal proceedings in time; on such an approach, the reasonableness of the claimant's actions could be tested and if necessary the common law claim struck out even if that left the claimant with no remaining cause of action.

The claimant did not need to establish either gross negligence or something more serious.

It followed that the claimant did not require the court's permission under r 35.4 to adduce it.

Similarly, the claimant did not object to the employer's use or reliance of the material at any stage, and in fact volunteered additional material.

The claimant did not hire a personal injury lawyer for her appeal, although she was represented at her trial.

If the injury claimant did not have a lawyer they will usually sign a written statement.

This personal injury claimant did not have the assistance of a personal injury lawyer at his trial which involved two car accidents.

It was often the case in litigation that a judgment for the claimant did not result in an immediate financial benefit, eg in claims for declarations.

Claimant did not miss any time from work.

However, with respect to the deposit of his vehicle the claimant did establish that he lost his $ 40,000 as a result of the car accident.

This personal injury claimant did not accept a reasonable offer to settle and the award at trial was significantly less than the offer.

In a decision to be welcomed by med - mal Insurers and healthcare providers, the Court of Appeal has rejected a claim that the Claimant did not give...

Although the claimant did a great deal of work, the defendant withdrew the claimant's authority to deal with his affairs.

The defendants served the consultation reports under the Rules and the claimant did not respond.

The claimant did not report his fall or his injury to anyone at the bank or to anyone having anything to do with the management or maintenance of the Mall's parking lot and sidewalks.

The employment tribunal decided that the Claimant did not have a disability for the purposes of a discrimination claim.

The claimant did not hire a lawyer to represent her at trial and her lack of objectivity caused the court to refuse most of her claim.

The Claimant did not have a breakdown of the total settlement proceeds of $ 365,000 as he was provided a lump sum cheque from ICBC without mention of awards for the specific damages sustained.

At the hearing fee stage, where the Claimant did not pay the fee and had not successfully applied for the fees to be waived, the claim would be rejected or dismissed.

Yet, it appears from the relevant clinical records that the claimant did not report significant or acute shoulder pain to the emergency room physician or to anyone other than her massage therapist for several weeks.

The Government's response to that report, published today, commits to carrying out a review of the remaining cases where Concentrix amended or terminated a tax credit award but where the claimant did not request a mandatory reconsideration (the first step in the appeals process).

The number of benefit claimants did reduce, but not by much.

And if a funded claimant doesn't use all of the money donated, anyone who has donated more than # 1,000 can request a refund.

The claimant does not assert that A was promiscuous, but states that his comments were a joke or done for fun.

However, that evidence appears to be largely anecdotal and there remains no published body of evidence to prove how seriously injured claimants do invest.

If the Claimant does not make a documented effort to do so the carrier will argue that the Claimant has been «removed from the labor market».

However, claimants do not have that requirement.

The unions compromised their claims, the terms of which were not known, and the claimants did not seek to pursue them for any further compensation.

The claimants did not challenge the decision to nationalise itself, rather the provisions of the compensation scheme which, they contended, breached their right to property under Art 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Issuing a claim form in time to overcome a limitation defence is one thing but how about serving when the claimant does not know if he has a case?

Some 36 % of claimants who had not received payment had attempted to enforce the award through the county court, and 40 % of unpaid or part paid claimants did not know that the award could be enforced through the county court.

Such claimants do not often disclose a document which proves of itself that the claim is fraudulent.

The claimants did not object to the core car and motorbicycle racing activities that were held at the circuit over approximately 45 to 50 days per year.

The claimant does not have the mental capacity to make his own decision about settlement and should have been represented though a responsible person, acting in the Client's best interests called a «litigation friend».

Without an attorney, consumers are behind the 8 ball if the insurance company does not play it straight and tries to take advantage of the fact that the claimant does not understand the law and their rights when making a property damage claim from a car accident.

There is no joint liability for costs and a party is not obliged to pay the proportion of other claimants» costs if those claimants do not or can not pay.

Indeed, following the decision it would be surprising if those acting for funded claimants did not consider making such applications; whether they will be successful will of course depend on the facts of a given case and the conduct of the parties».

What happens if a claimant does not accept an ICBC offer and the court awards less than the amount offered?

The unrepresented claimants don't know any different.

ICBC claimants do not have to look outside the Province to find a top - rated ICBC lawyer to assist in an insurance injury claim after a car accident.

This is further proof of the government making every effort possible to see that claimants do not get lawyers to represent them.