Sentences with phrase «in breach of the duty imposed»

Not exact matches

The High Court previously decided in May 2015 that the BBC was not in breach of its employer's duty of good faith by imposing a cap on pensionable salary.

Did the Court of Appeal properly exercise its discretion in imposing a constructive trust to remedy the breaches of fiduciary duties?

After affirming the trial judge's decision that Mr. Allen was actually terminated on October 14, 2009, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia cited with approval the decision of Bowes v. Goss Power Products Ltd., 2012 ONCA 425, (canvassed by this blog in the post Fix the Duty to Mitigate) in which the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that if an employment contract provides for a fixed severance package there is no duty on the employee to mitigate his damages, and held that as Mr. Allen's employment agreement did not impose a duty to mitigate, the trial judge properly found he was therefore entitled to the balance owing for 15 months» salary and benefits in lieu of notice as damages for breach of contrDuty to Mitigate) in which the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that if an employment contract provides for a fixed severance package there is no duty on the employee to mitigate his damages, and held that as Mr. Allen's employment agreement did not impose a duty to mitigate, the trial judge properly found he was therefore entitled to the balance owing for 15 months» salary and benefits in lieu of notice as damages for breach of contrduty on the employee to mitigate his damages, and held that as Mr. Allen's employment agreement did not impose a duty to mitigate, the trial judge properly found he was therefore entitled to the balance owing for 15 months» salary and benefits in lieu of notice as damages for breach of contrduty to mitigate, the trial judge properly found he was therefore entitled to the balance owing for 15 months» salary and benefits in lieu of notice as damages for breach of contract.

The Appellants argued s. 185 applied in the circumstances; that a cyclist should be considered the same as a motorist where there is a breach of the TSA or the Use of Highway and Rules of the Road Regulation, Alta Reg 304/2002 («Road Regulation») because both statutes impose the same duties on cyclists and motorists.

Pennsylvania — Attorney Liability, Key Points: Liability for aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty has never been imposed on an attorney in Pennsylvania who merely provided legal representation to his client.

Mosley v UK: «Max Mosley has lost his case in the European Court of Human Rights, in which he claimed that the UK breached his right to respect for private life under article 8 of the ECHR by failing to impose a legal duty on the media to notify him in advance of a story that violated his privacy....»

(1) extending negligent misrepresentation beyond «business transactions» to product liability, unprecedented in Texas; (2) ignoring multiple US Supreme Court decisions that express and implied preemption operate independently (as discussed here) to dismiss implied preemption with nothing more than a cite to the Medtronic v. Lohr express preemption decision; (3) inventing some sort of state - law tort to second - guess the defendant following one FDA marketing approach (§ 510k clearance) over another (pre-market approval), unprecedented anywhere; (4) holding that the learned intermediary rule does not apply whenever a defendant «compensates» or «incentivizes» physicians to use its products, absent any Texas state or appellate authority; (5) imposing strict liability on an entity not in the product's chain of sale, contrary to Texas statute (§ 82.001 (2)-RRB-; (6) creating a claim for «tortious interference» with the physician - patient relationship, again utterly unprecedented; (7) creating «vicarious» breach of fiduciary duty for engaging doctors to serve as expert witnesses in mass tort litigation also involving their patients, ditto; and (8) construing a consulting agreement with a physician as «commercial bribery» to avoid the Texas cap on punitive damages, jaw - droppingly unprecedented.

(14) Imposing, and authorising a Protector to inflict summary punishment by way of imprisonment, not exceeding fourteen days, upon aboriginals or half - castes, living upon a reserve or within the District under his charge, who, in the judgment of the Protector, are guilty of any crime, serious misconduct, neglect of duty, gross insubordination, or wilful breach of the Regulations;