Sentences with phrase «interesting high court decision»

March saw an interesting High Court decision about whether restrictive covenants which were over 100 years old were still enforceable in the case of Birdlip Ltd v Hunter [2015] EWHC 808 (Ch)(read our blog here).

Not exact matches

It is also interesting to note that the huge increases in New York in 2006 were enacted despite a decision by the state's highest court several months earlier that a significantly lower appropriation was needed to meet constitutional requirements, indicating that something other than the court decision was behind the unprecedented increases.

The Court of Appeal backed the High Court decision, holding that the contract was inadequate to protect the interests of the purchasers, and that the firm did not provide enough relevant information, particularly regarding the payment structure of the project and the promoter's commission.

Following a successful claim against a fund manager, the High Court made a non-party costs order against five investors in the fund who had met the costs of the defence, had an interest in the outcome of the claim (which need not be financial), and had control over the litigation by making major decisions.

David is generally instructed in high profile and heavyweight cases in the High Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribuhigh profile and heavyweight cases in the High Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment TribuHigh Court, frequently involving conspiracy and economic torts, unlawful competition, team moves, the protection of confidential information, post-termination restraints, wrongful termination / expulsion, carried interest and bonus disputes (where he has acted in most of the landmark decisions such as Horkulak v Cantor Fitzgerald, Keen v Commerzbank and Anar v Dresdner Kleinwort), as well as claims arising in a regulatory context which raise important reputational issues, and whistleblowing and discrimination claims in the Employment Tribunal.

R (Teva B.V.) v Secretary of State for Health [2018] EWHC 228 (Admin) Biogen Idec Ltd was an interested party Overview On 13 February 2018, the High Court (Jay J) dismissed the application of Teva BV («Teva») for judicial review of the decision of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency («MHRA») not to -LSB-...]

Christian Stuerwald and Mick Smith provide brief comments on an interesting case recently decided by the High Court, in which the High Court confirmed an arbitration tribunal's decision that the success fee a claimant pays to his litigation funder is recoverable from the losing defendant in certain circumstances.

Of note with respect to the issue of damages is that the court declined to award punitive damages, notwithstanding Justice Boswell's finding, in paragraph 23 of his reasons for decision, that, «Mr. Dewji's conduct, as the sole director and officer of the defendant corporations, was oppressive, high - handed, callous and unfairly prejudicial to the rights and interests of the plaintiffs.»

Parenting coordination is a court ordered, child - focused dispute resolution process in which a Parenting Coordinator is appointed to assist high conflict parties by accessing and managing conflicts, redirecting the focus of the parties to the needs of the child, and educating the parties on how to make decisions that are in the best interest of the child.

On the subject of such policies, only a few days after that blog, the Ontario Court of Appeal rendered an interesting decision with respect to a high school teacher who maintained on his school laptop pornographic pictures of a Grade 10 student.

On the level and quality of public discussions of Supreme Court decisions, she reports that the press and the media have not taken much more interest in their work since the court's high - profile move across Parliament Square, Despite recordings of hearings being available to the press, «they don't often ask&raCourt decisions, she reports that the press and the media have not taken much more interest in their work since the court's high - profile move across Parliament Square, Despite recordings of hearings being available to the press, «they don't often ask&racourt's high - profile move across Parliament Square, Despite recordings of hearings being available to the press, «they don't often ask».

In a previous article, Losing Momentive: A Roadmap to Higher Cramdown Interest Rates, we explored how the judicial cramdown interest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a 2015 decision by the District Court foInterest Rates, we explored how the judicial cramdown interest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a 2015 decision by the District Court fointerest rate cap was not gaining widespread traction as feared by many in response to the 2014 Momentive bench ruling upheld in a 2015 decision by the District Court for the...

The upshot, then, is that — absent an «exceptional public interest» — the High Court is now statutorily barred from granting relief if the «outcome» of a decision - making process is highly likely to have been unaffected by a legal flaw committed in the making of the decision, even though the flaw renders the decision unlawful.

In a decision of great interest to international banks and judgment creditors, New York's highest court ruled that the «separate entity» doctrine - a common - law rule that prevents a judgment creditor from compelling a garnishee...

The interesting England and Wales High Court decision on the nature of Critical Mass was Kay v. Commissioner of Police

«In his 2002 book Friends of the Court: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada, Harper's present chief of staff, Ian Brodie, criticized the Court Challenges Program for unduly favouring feminist and gay - rights groups, and noted that Supreme Court decisions benefiting such groups offer the high court «all the fun of making political decisions under the guise of interpreting constitutional law».&rCourt: The Privileging of Interest Group Litigants in Canada, Harper's present chief of staff, Ian Brodie, criticized the Court Challenges Program for unduly favouring feminist and gay - rights groups, and noted that Supreme Court decisions benefiting such groups offer the high court «all the fun of making political decisions under the guise of interpreting constitutional law».&rCourt Challenges Program for unduly favouring feminist and gay - rights groups, and noted that Supreme Court decisions benefiting such groups offer the high court «all the fun of making political decisions under the guise of interpreting constitutional law».&rCourt decisions benefiting such groups offer the high court «all the fun of making political decisions under the guise of interpreting constitutional law».&rcourt «all the fun of making political decisions under the guise of interpreting constitutional law».»

However, the recognition and protection of those right and interests in Australian law occurred only recently, with the High Court's 1992 decision in Mabo (No. 2).128 There the Court found that the legal doctrine of terra nullius, or «land belonging to no one», that had applied from the British colonisation of Australia, was false.

In May 2008, the High Court handed down its decision allowing for the acquisition and extinguishment of the native title rights and interests held by the Ngaliwurru and Nungali peoples.

The justifiable aims proposed in relation to the amendments included the need to provide certainty to non-Indigenous and Indigenous titleholders; the need to deal with the High Court's decision in the Wik case; and the need to balance the interests of all the stakeholders in the legislation, including farmers, miners, developers, governments, and native title holders.

Since then, the High Court has handed down two significant decisions, the Ward decision2 and the Yorta Yorta decision3 which again recast «the balance» between Indigenous and non-Indigenous interests ensuring that non-Indigenous interests are well and truly protected and that Indigenous interests remain remnant interests in the native title system.4 Noel Pearson made this point in the 2003 Mabo lecture:

The NTA provides a fairly comprehensive codification of what past government actions extinguish native title.145 It classifies various interests in the past, often distant past, as «previous exclusive possession acts» which deems them to have permanently extinguished native title.146 The NTA also provides that «previous non-exclusive possession acts» 147 will extinguish native title to the extent of any inconsistency.148 The NTA also validates acts of government that took place before the High Court's decision in Wik which may be invalid because of the existence of native title (generally, due to the Constitutional requirement that «just terms» be paid where property is acquired, 149 or the operation of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth).150 This aspect of the NTA has been repeatedly criticised by CERD.

Instead, the NTA and High Court decisions have established a system where non-Indigenous interests are provided with greater protection and Indigenous rights are easily extinguished.

The High Court decision in the Mabo case in 1992 and the Native Title Act brought about a fundamental shift in law and government policy, giving way to the growing recognition of the rights and interests of Aboriginal people to their country.

The High Court decision provides a detailed history of the WLA and the nature of the interests created as part of its inquiry into whether the perpetual leases confers a right of exclusive possession.

In the Yorta Yorta decision, the High Court considered the distinction made in the NTA between the law - making system of Indigenous people and the rights and interests that emanate from this system.

In the Croker Island decision, the High Court held that native title rights and interests over marine waters relating to fishing and general access to the area are not exclusive.

The Northern Territory Government, Traditional Owners and other stakeholders with interests in the waters included in this decision, are working together to develop an arrangement where interests granted prior to the High Court decision are able to continue, and the Indigenous groups are able to exercise and enjoy their rights.

A recent Supreme Court of Canada decision, Krayzel Corp. v. Equitable Trust Co. tackled an interesting related issue: Does this prohibition also cover those scenarios where the borrower gets a lower - interest rate «discount» while he or she is not in default, as compared to the higher rate payable if the loan goes into default?