In this article we run though
the headline facts of this case which lead to the affirmation of the DIFC Courts» jurisdiction to enforce the judgments of foreign courts in some circumstances.
In this article we run though
the headline facts of this case.
Not exact matches
My initial point is the
headline belies the
facts on which the
case turned in favour
of the plaintiff... which is namely....
Stuck for
headlines after years
of pickling, pots and sputtering lightbulbs, subeditors go straight to the
facts of the
case.
The surprise to me with this lawsuit is that it doesn't feature sensational evidence like others did — the older Kivalina v Exxon
case and the newer San Mateo / Marin / Imperial Beach v. Chevron
cases — by citing the infamous «leaked memo set»
headlined with «reposition global warming as theory rather than
fact,» which are universally accepted among enviro - activists as smoking gun evidence
of skeptic climate scientists being paid to push misinformation to the public at the behest
of sinister corporate handlers.
Coverage
of this verdict has everything: screaming
headlines of an eye - popping verdict, sensationalization
of the verdict throughout most
of the articles, irresponsible placement (i.e. far down into the articles and in one
case the very last paragraph)
of the
fact that state law «caps» damages regardless
of what a jury awards.
My initial point is the
headline belies the
facts on which the
case turned in favour
of the plaintiff... which is namely....