Sentences with phrase «for the claimants did»

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.

The judge found that the solicitors for the claimants did take instructions from their clients.

Not exact matches

The Jesus stories may have been based on one of many Jewish messiah claimants, if the stories are based on the life of an actual individual, though there's not even any incontrovertible evidence that he even existed, if one searches for such evidence outside the Bible and doesn't rely on known forged material, such as the Testimonium Flavianum.

But commitment to openness as such does not provide a place to stand, a place from which to evaluate the many claimants for our attention and belief.

At present, all claimants are able to turn down any job they do not want to do for at least the first three months of making a claim.

Most tax credit claimants must renew their claim each year by 31 July, but those claimants who do not know their income from the previous year by then (for example, self - employed claimants) can submit an estimated figure.

In response to argument from the claimants» legal teams - that parliament never contemplated Ripa being used as a figleaf for undercover sex - Justice Tugendhat suggested that most MPs were aware of accounts, albeit fictional, in which James Bond does just that.

So, the unearned wealth of an individual who is fortunate enough to receive a large inheritance, or to have profitable investments etc, is rather different from the unearned wealth of the - for example - benefits claimant that has done between little and nothing to find a job (I am not saying all benefits claimants fall into this category, or even the majority; but to note that the system is occasionally abused is hardly a controversial statement).

Pity for us he didn't pull out of the coalition earlier and prevent far greater suffering being imposed on welfare claimants, families, students, patients.

Darling doesn't say in the speech, but a table in the PBR contains the Treasury's projection for claimant unemployment (people claiming unemployment benefit): one and three - quarter million in 2009 and 2010; one and a half million in 2011 and 2012; and one and a quarter million in 2013 and 2014.

Tory MPs are likely to be appeased but Labour may well think this does not go far enough, considering many claimants have been left waiting for six weeks for their first payments.

But lawyers for claimants say that this money doesn't adequately compensate their clients for their losses.

In NT1 and NT2 v Google [2018] EWHC 799 (QB), Mr Justice Warby held that Google was not obliged to delist search results relating to the spent conviction of the first claimant, NT1, but that it was obliged to do so for the second, NT2.

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

Some claimants can not afford their own / adverse cost risks; others have the financial capacity to do so, but choose to offset a part of the risk to free up resources for use elsewhere.

The issue for me is that some judges say: «defendant must prove that there is a valid agreement but, if he has done so, it is on the claimant to prove that the agreement is null and void»

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.

Uber's case was essentially that the claimants were not entitled to these rights as they always carried out their work for Uber as self - employed contractors who do not benefit from the right to the national minimum wage or paid leave.

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.

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.

However, the Judge found that Dr. Sovio did not address the chronic nature of the injury and awarded the claimant $ 75,000.00 for pain and suffering, $ 75,000.00 for reduced earning capacity, $ 22,000.00 past income loss and out of pocket expenses of $ 1,533.00.

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

2 Mar. 28, 2017)(unpublished) demonstrates what a fee claimant should not do as far as submitting substantiation for a fee petition.

This is great news for BC injury claimants but does have a few personal injury lawyers scratching their heads.

Although the court concluded that the defendant was liable for the accident the claimant, without a lawyer, did not prove that her injuries were anything but very minor or that they impacted her life in a material way.

ISSUE: Do you think restricting expert reports will make a personal injury lawsuit even more difficult for claimants to pursue?

He appeared for the successful claimant in the recent Court of Appeal of Webb which set out the principles to be applied when a claimant beats a Part 36 offer but does not succeed on all issues in the case.

In all of the circumstances, and discounting the claimant's evidence to account for what the court believed to be his own exaggerated and dishonest description of some of his injuries, the judge did not see fit to award anything more than nominal damages in this case.

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.

It is clear that the EAT did not regard its conclusion as representing a satisfactory state of affairs, particularly where the joint or concurrent tortfeasors are at arms» length, eg as in Bullimore v Porthecary Witham Weld [2011] IRLR 18 where an ex-employer gave a damaging reference about the claimant to a prospective employer because the ex-employee had presented a sex discrimination claim against them and the prospective employer withdrew the offer for the same reason, and in circumstances where CLIA 1978 applies to discrimination claims brought in the ordinary courts.

Perhaps use of Cybersettle has enabled more claimants to negotiate with the city unrepresented — and they're willing to settle for less either because they don't realize that they might be entitled to more or because they're willing to accept less where a lawyer doesn't take a cut of the recovery.

The smile is wiped off the faces of cheeky land possession claimants who did not issue on - line and might have suggested that there was no provision for any fee to be paid by them.

In this action the defendant did not dispute, in principle, that the claimant was entitled to damages for imprisonment arising from crimes committed by reason of his head injury.

A group of claimants led by investment manager Gina Miller and hairdresser Deir Dos Santos are demanding that the triggering of Article 50 — which starts a two - year deadline for the exit process to be completed — be subject to a vote in parliament.

The legal charity says that while it does not object in principle to the decision to abolish the recoverability of success fees in conditional fee agreements, this must be accompanied by the safeguard of costs protection, or qualified one way costs shifting, for claimants who are not wealthy.

The decision in Conn may have successfully prevented claimants trying to use harassment law to pursue stress claims but is the decision limited to those cases or does it have ramifications for all harassment claims?

If you think that handling your own claim will save you money, consider that studies overwhelmingly demonstrate that injured claimants who retain car accident lawyers receive far more compensation than those who do not, even accounting for legal fees.

This does not stop the Claimant from applying to the Court for an interim payment, but the Court must be satisfied that the Claimant's claim will be successful before making an interim payment.

So while the lien claimant in this case may have lost certain remedies that it would have received under a lien, it still was entitled to judgment for the work that it did.

If lawyers within firms did not have uniform coverage and share the same limit, it would be open for claimants to formulate their claims based upon the broadest coverage and highest available limit.

As recent cases such as Watkinson (ET 1702168 / 2008 and 1702079 / 2009) have demonstrated, there is ample incentive for unfair dismissal claimants to allege that the reason for dismissal was, for example, the fact that protected disclosures had been made, because the statutory cap on compensation does not apply in such cases.

The MoJ does specifically ask for views as to how support could otherwise be offered to unrepresented claimants.

While it was true that the claimant was being carried for purposes of leisure in the instant case, that did not in itself mean that he was not being carried as a passenger or that he was not being carried in an «aircraft».

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.

In theory, they remained liable for it, although in reality it was done entirely for their own benefit, since the claimant had no interest in the argument.

For those who are watching the development of EU law — and in particular the mysterious reaches of the Charter — with interest, the Master of the Rolls expressly rejected the Claimant's submission that there was a difference between Convention law (which permitted withholding material from an excluded person in certain circumstances) and EU law which the Claimant claimed did not.

The judge found that the claimant was indeed precluded by the certificate from claiming damages arising from personal injuries sustained in the accident but did say that the claimant was not statute barred by virtue of the s. 257 certificate and s. 10 (1) of the WCA from maintaining an action for his business - related losses.

Did the claimant in the subrogated claim have to give credit to the tortfeasor for the discount or could his insurers collect the gross hire charges?

In Copley v Lawn and another case [2009] EWCA Civ 580 the Court of Appeal held — and its decision has implications in non-credit hire cases too — that it was not unreasonable for a claimant to reject or ignore an offer from the defendant or his insurers which did not make clear the cost of hire to the defendant for the purpose of enabling the claimant to make a reasonable comparison with the cost which he is incurring or is about to incur.

Conversely, simply delaying service of the claim form while awaiting a fuller particularisation of the Particulars of Claim generally will not be a sufficiently good reason for delaying service of the claim form; nor will a claimant's desire to delay service in order to await some other development in the case; whether the nature of the claim was brought to the attention of the defendant before expiry of the time for service; where the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form, but been unable to do so, will generally suffice as a very good reason for failure to serve, whereas a mere oversight in failing to serve in time will not; and provided that the prospective defendant has not acted obstructively, he is under no obligation to give any positive assistance to the claimant to serve the claim form.