Sentences with phrase «considered by litigants»

Mediation, a form of non-binding structured negotiations involving a neutral third party mediator, is the principal method of alternative dispute resolution considered by litigants and encouraged by the courts.

Not exact matches

«(a) CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION IN APPROPRIATE CASES - Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary and except as provided in subsections (b) and (c), each district court shall, by local rule adopted under section 2071 (a), require that litigants in all civil cases consider the use of an alternative dispute resolution process at an appropriate stage in the litigation.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Alaska injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

Provided the efficient administration of justice is unlikely to be compromised, and the circumstances of the case do not render it unfair, a genuine request by a litigant for assistance is likely to be considered favourably.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Georgia injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The second consideration is that the involvement of free attorneys will further encourage judges to omit and refuse to read and consider papers filed by pro se litigants.

The knowledge that self - represented litigants are — almost by definition — under - funded can often prod opposing lawyers to engage in litigation practices that would otherwise be considered as vexatious or as an abuse of the court's processes if conducted against a fellow Member of the Bar.

Pending the outcome of the consultation, this interim guidance should be considered by courts, litigants, their legal representatives and the media if and when any application is made to the court to permit the use of live, text - based communications.

While the opinion given by the Supreme Court of Canada is not considered to be of the same precedential value as the decisions involving regular litigants, governments do not usually ignore the Court's opinion.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Tennessee injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a Missouri injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a California injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

After an overview of the Employment Tribunal regime in chapter 1, it launches into a consideration of the need for advice, thus openly pitching to the lowest common denominator of the litigant in person while in a balanced and unbiased manner (bearing in mind that it is written by seasoned practitioners) considering whether professional assistance is necessary.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a North Carolina injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

-LSB-...] The Alberta Law Reform Institute considered whether the New Rules should allow litigants to be assisted by a «McKenzie friend» adopting the definition of a McKenzie friend as being a -LSB-...] The McKenzie friend's support may range from a role similar to a legal expert (prompting the litigant to make useful points and representations, and examination of witnesses and giving -LSB-...] The rationale for allowing a McKenzie friend is fairness to self - represented litigants: R. v. Leicester City Justice; ex parte Barrow, [1991] 3 All E.R. 935, cited in CM 12.18 -LSB-...]

The Chief Justice considers the possibility of broadening the exemption for «impoverished» litigants by reading in the the terms «in need,» as the Court of Appeal had done, but rejects it.

The following factors are considered in determining recognition and enforceability of a foreign injunction: (a) are the terms of the order clear and specific enough to ensure that the defendant will know what is expected; (b) is the order limited in its scope and did the originating court retain the power to issue further orders; (c) is the enforcement the least burdensome remedy for the Canadian justice system; (d) is the Canadian litigant exposed to unforeseen obligations; (e) are any third parties affected by the order; and (f) will the use of judicial resources be consistent with what would be allowed for domestic litigants.

The duty of preservation is a foundational concept in our legal system that grows out of the common law concept of spoliation, which is more than 200 years old: if courts exist to make determinations about disputed facts, and if the trier of fact must make those determinations using the available evidence, then no litigant should be allowed to gain advantage in those determinations by destroying relevant evidence before the trier of fact can consider it.

Considering that many litigants go to trial when they would have been better off by accepting their counterpart's last offer, just reaching an agreement typically creates value for the parties... [Good Pretrial Lawyering, p. 41]

Reacting to comments made by Cardiff Law School academic Annette Morris at the Westminster Legal Policy Forum that ministers must «adapt» the claims system and portal to handle litigants in person (LiP) before considering raising the small claims limit, David Stothard, an expert in the medical and legal aspects of personal injury claims and director of MAPS Medical Reporting says that for LiPs not to struggle with the claims process would require a complete overhaul of the system.

The report considers easing the access difficulty for would - be litigants by raising the limit for small claims, particularly as regards the # 1,000 ceiling on personal injury claims.

A new report prepared by John Greacen for the Self - Represented Litigation Network (released July 2016) considers data collected from Alaska, Idaho, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Utah, and California, and sheds light on the provision of remote legal service access for self - represented litigants.

The Commission considers that it might be appropriate for s 183 or the Guidelines to be amended to stipulate that recipients of funding under the scheme must agree to abide by the Commonwealth model litigant guidelines scheduled to the Legal Service Directions and that failure to so comply may result in withdrawal of funding.

The Commission considers that it might be appropriate for the propose s 213A or the Guidelines to be amended to stipulate that recipients of funding under the scheme must agree to abide by the Commonwealth model litigant guidelines scheduled to the Legal Service Directions and that failure to so comply may result in withdrawal of funding.

In considering how court support can be best provided to Indigenous litigants a fundamental principle is that court support needs to be provided at a local level by respected local Indigenous community members.

When considered in light of the relatively lower uptake of dispute resolution services by way of Family Relationship Centres (as reported earlier by Indigenous litigants - see Table 7) the results suggest that the accessibility of dispute resolution services may be an issue for Indigenous families.