Sentences with phrase «issue estoppel in»

Finally, applying issue estoppel in a situation such as this carries a risk of judicializing the administrative process.

The court noted a change in the law did not trigger the «special circumstance» exception to issue estoppel, and found there was no basis to exercise its discretion to bar the application of issue estoppel in this case.

Ian Roland and Michael Fenrick represented the Canadian Police Association before the Supreme Court of Canada in Penner v. Niagara Police Services Board, a case which raises the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel in the context of police discipline.

Baron J reviewed the authorities on issue estoppel and found herself in agreement with Re B and another (minors)(care proceedings: evidence)[1997] 1 FLR 285, [1997] 2 All ER 29 and Mrs Justice Hale (as she then was) that issue estoppel in children cases, in any strict sense, does not apply.

Not exact matches

As for the attempt in the White Paper to water down the Supreme Court's decisions to favour the Government's foreign friends and surrogates such as Waterville and Isofoton after the Supreme Court's conclusive declarations and orders on the issue of estoppel the little said about the Government's disingenuity on the matter the better.

For example, in the recent Liden v Burton [2016] EWCA Civ 275, [2016] Fam Law 687 (proprietary estoppel: see next article) Hamblen LJ characterised the issues on appeal as: «(i) whether the judge wrongly applied the law to the facts as found; (ii) whether the judge erred in the exercise of his discretion in giving effect to the equity» in the particular case.

On appeal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the Appellate Practice Group that issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, barred the prisoner from re-litigating issues that had been adjudicated in prior actions.

-- National Gas Company of Trinidad and Tobago Limited v. Colfire Fire and General Insurance Co Ltd: led by Claire Blanchard Q.C. for the claimant state gas company in US$ 60 million Commercial Court proceedings relating to the insurance of an offshore drilling project on «WELCAR» terms and giving rise to numerous issues of policy interpretation, estoppel and the reasons for the project's failure.

The Supreme Court of Canada has been feverishly productive in the field of administrative law since the Fall of 2011, rendering decisions on standard of review (questions of law, jurisdictional error and labour arbitrators), the right to reasons, issue estoppel, attempts to pre-empt the administrative decision - making process, and review of municipal by - laws.

A fascination of this case is to watch a judge treading a careful path between the technicalities of issue estoppel and a possible strike out on the one hand, balanced against a clear emphasis on the court's duty to protect the welfare of a child in the widest possible sense: the first a matter of analysis of law, the second a matter of pure discretion.

This depends upon when a concept analogous to the principle of collateral estoppel (also known as «issue preclusion») in civil cases, in which facts previously litigated can bind a party in a later lawsuit, with or without constitutional double jeopardy dimensions, applies in criminal cases.

Led by Paul Key QC of Essex Court Chambers, represented sellers in a two - week Fosfa arbitration hearing involving the long - term supply of edible oil to buyers in a Southern African state; the hearing involved issues relating to the interpretation of time - bars, the extension of shipment periods and waiver and estoppel.

In his Dictionary of Legal Usage, Bryan Garner explains that collateral estoppel is «a miniature of res judicata: the former applies to issues, the latter to entire claims or lawsuits.»

In the U.S., any court can determine that a law is unconstitutional, but the extent to which that ruling is binding precedent on other courts or other parties than those to the case before it depends upon the court in question and upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel (a.k.a. issue preclusionIn the U.S., any court can determine that a law is unconstitutional, but the extent to which that ruling is binding precedent on other courts or other parties than those to the case before it depends upon the court in question and upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel (a.k.a. issue preclusionin question and upon the doctrine of collateral estoppel (a.k.a. issue preclusion).

Sophie frequently advises on procedural and evidential issues arising in the course of litigation including disclosure, privilege, costs and jurisdictional matters, including the territorial jurisdiction of the Employment Tribunal, choice of forum (Employment Tribunal / High Court), time points, illegality, employee status and issue estoppel.

Then came Edgerton v Edgerton and Shaikh [2012] EWCA Civ 181, [2012] All ER (D) 172 (Feb) in which Lord Neuberger MR again — in passing, only, on this occasion — consigned a family lawyer's assumption to the same dustbin as «Hildebrand rules»: «[36][The judge below] thought that, as the court in the ancillary relief proceedings had an inquisitorial, or quasi-inquisitorial (as Thorpe LJ put it in Parra v Parra [2002] EWCA Civ 1886, para 22), role, the normal rules as to issue estoppel did not apply.

Thus the belief that issue estoppel can not apply to family proceedings is shown to be «absurd»; and, in passing, Lord Neuberger allies himself with the minority in Re L (led by Lord Nicholls) who had been so disparaging — the «beguiling term inquisitorial» — of the non-adversarial system espoused by the majority.

[1] These appeals concern the application of the doctrine of issue estoppel, as clarified by this Court in R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63 (CanLII), 2008 SCC 63, [2008] 3 S.C.R. 316, in the context of a multi-issue jury trial.

It is likely that the unsuccessful respondent will be unable to re-litigate the allegations that founded an award for (for example) unfair dismissal in PHA 1997 proceedings, as an issue estoppel arises: «Where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in the cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant one of the parties seeks to reopen that issue» (Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93, [1991] 3 All ER 41, per Lord Keith of Kinkel).

Their view accords with my own in any event but, in my judgement, therefore, the decisions of the English Courts do create an issue estoppel against the Defendant in raising the argument that the waiver is insufficient where recognition, enforcement and execution are concerned.

Tags: Abuse of Process, bc injury law, Issue Estoppel, McClusky v. Desilets, Mr. Justice Steeves Posted in ICBC Liability (fault) Cases Direct Link 1 Comment» top ^

The appellate court, not reaching this issue, affirmed the dismissal finding the judicial estoppel doctrine barred plaintiff from asserting an inconsistent position in a subsequent proceeding... Click here for full article.

If the effect is that service can by stymied lawfully under the terms of the Convention by the engagement of Article 10 by the KRG, as opposed to the Federal Republic of Iraq, which may depend on a number of factors relating to its status and possible questions of issue estoppel and the effect of other treaty obligations, or can be stymied in practice by questionable and unlawful means, that is the result of the treaty obligation by which DIFC is bound and which it is bound to observe.

Along with attorney Jeffrey S. Taylor, Michael successfully defended (not guilty in a bench trial) a claim on a personal guarantee valued in excess of $ 2,000,000.00 and alleged breach of fiduciary duty in a complex case which involved issues of estoppel, accord and satisfactory parol evidence, statute of frauds, unclean hands, breach of contract, burden shifting, constructive trust, Marital Settlement Agreements and bankruptcy issues.

[55] The three-fold requirements which must be established in order to successfully invoke issue estoppel are:

[2009] EWCA Civ 1397; [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 193; [2010] 2 All E.R. (Comm) 1243; [2010] I l Pr 10; [2009] 2 CLC 1003]; The Times 8th Feb 2010; — leading case on recognition under the Judgments Regulation of foreign judgments obtained in breach of London arbitration agreements, and issue estoppel.

Michael was also counsel for the Canadian Police Association in Penner v. Niagara Police Services Board respecting the scope of issue estoppel and police discipline

In general, the English common law principles of res judicata and issue estoppel apply to arbitrations sited in England and WaleIn general, the English common law principles of res judicata and issue estoppel apply to arbitrations sited in England and Walein England and Wales.

Prudential Staff Pensions Ltd v Prudential Assurance Co Ltd [2011] PLR 239 — Proceedings for directions on a large number of issues (including issues of estoppel and potential breach of the employer's duty of good faith) following a change by Prudential in its long - established policy of granting discretionary RPI linked increases to pensions in payment;

The Court of Appeal cited Abella J., who wrote, after reviewing the law of issue estoppel, collateral attack and abuse of process, «forum shopping for a different and better result can be dressed up in many attractive adjectives, but fairness is not among them» (See British Columbia (Workers» Compensation Board) v Figliola, 2011 SCC 52 (CanLII) at para 36).

Enmax Energy Corp. v. TransAlta Generation Partnership 2015 ABCA 383 Arbitration — Estoppel Summary: The appellant appealed a chambers judge's decision where he held that the parties to an arbitration were not bound by a prior arbitration award involving the same parties, that a party (in this case, the respondent) was not estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, and that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply to arbitrationEstoppel Summary: The appellant appealed a chambers judge's decision where he held that the parties to an arbitration were not bound by a prior arbitration award involving the same parties, that a party (in this case, the respondent) was not estopped from taking certain positions in the current arbitration as a result of the prior arbitration decision, and that the doctrines of res judicata and issue estoppel did not apply to arbitrationestoppel did not apply to arbitration awards.

The name of the legal doctrine that allows a criminal judgment to have this effect in a civil case is called «collateral estoppel» which is also sometimes called «issue preclusion».

By reason of issue estoppel, an unappealed decision made by a competent tribunal as to jurisdiction is binding on the parties in the same proceedings, even though a later decision in a separate action may show that it was erroneous in law.

In this case, it would be unjust if the issue estoppel did not apply to the second and third applications.

It is submitted that in any event, change in law subsequent to the previous proceedings, is an exceptional circumstance and issue of estoppel would not apply.

In a case of this nature, however, the doctrine of «issue estoppel» as also»cause of action estoppel» may arise.

In case of Bhanukumar Jain Versus Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 the Supreme Court has held that a cause of action estoppel arises wherein two different proceedings identical issues are raised in which event the later proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedingIn case of Bhanukumar Jain Versus Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 the Supreme Court has held that a cause of action estoppel arises wherein two different proceedings identical issues are raised in which event the later proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedingin which event the later proceedings between the same parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedingin the previous proceedings.

In my view, the cause of action in application under section 9 and under section 34 are different and thus the issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel would not apply in this situatioIn my view, the cause of action in application under section 9 and under section 34 are different and thus the issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel would not apply in this situatioin application under section 9 and under section 34 are different and thus the issue estoppel or cause of action estoppel would not apply in this situatioin this situation.

It is submitted that a cause of action estoppel arises where in two different proceedings identical issues were raised, in which event the later proceedings between the same Parties shall be dealt with similarly as was done in the previous proceedings.

«We had raised three issues in our defense, but the one that resonated with the three - judge panel was licensee estoppel.