Sentences with phrase «limiting special jurisdiction»

In essence, he suggests limiting special jurisdiction under Article 7 (2) to two fora at the choice of the injured party; the courts in both fora would have jurisdiction to rule on the full claim, irrespective of whether the claimant is a legal or natural person (paras 70 - 72).

Not exact matches

To the extent permitted by law, we shall not be liable for any Losses by or with respect to the Account, except to the extent that such Losses are actual Losses proven with reasonable certainty, are not speculative, are proven to have been fairly within the contemplation of the parties as of the date hereof, and are determined by a court of competent jurisdiction or an arbitration panel in a final non-appealable judgment or order to have resulted solely from our gross negligence or willful misconduct and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, we will not be liable for any indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages or other losses (regardless of whether such damages or other losses were reasonably foreseeable).

To the fullest extent permitted by law, by your access to the Sites, you agree that: (i) any claim, dispute or cause of action regarding the Sites or these Terms shall be brought individually (NOT AS PART OF A CLASS ACTION) in the federal or state courts of the State of New York, and, such claim / dispute / cause of action will be resolved by a judge and THE RIGHT TO A JURY TRIAL IS HEREBY EXPRESSLY WAIVED; (ii) you consent to the personal jurisdiction of such courts as the exclusive tribunal for adjudication of any such claim / dispute / cause of action, expressly waiving any right of forum non convenience, change of venue or like right; (iii) your recovery will be limited to actual out - of - pocket costs involved in specifically accessing the Sites (if any) and you expressly waive your right to all other forms of recovery, including by way of example only, punitive, consequential, indirect, incidental, special and exemplary damages as well as attorneys» fees for bringing such claim / dispute / cause of action; and (iv) the court shall apply the law of the State of New York in adjudicating any such claim / dispute / cause of action, except for the choice of law / conflict of law rules of the State of New York (or of any other jurisdiction which would result in the application of the law of any jurisdiction other than the State of New York).

Some restrictions that various versions of BSL impose are: - muzzling and leashing in public - muzzling and leashing in cars - extra-short leash lengths - automatic dangerous or vicious dog designation, without any bite history - banning from city parks and beaches where other breeds are allowed - banning from leash - free parks where other breeds are allowed - banning completely from jurisdiction (although sometimes existing dogs are allowed to stay)- special (i.e., more expensive) licensing and jurisdiction - wide registry - special tags identifying the dog as a restricted dog - mandatory microchipping and photograph - mandatory insurance (often one million dollars) for each individual dog on the premises - mandatory signage indicating the presence of the dog on the owner's property - mandatory secure enclosures (in some cases, mandatory chaining)- mandatory spay / neuter (to eventually eliminate the breed entirely)- higher fines and / or jail time if a restricted breed bites or menaces - fines and / or jail time for any infraction of any provision regarding restricted breeds - age limit for walking the dog in public - persons with criminal records not allowed to own a restricted breed - ability of law enforcement to stop owners on the street just to check the dog's status - ability of law enforcement to seize dogs without proof of wrongdoing - ability of law enforcement to enter an owner's home, with or without a warrant, to investigate and / or seize a dog

Abandoning the «mosaic» approach to limit the number of potential jurisdictions would more likely reflect the rationale of the special rule of jurisdiction under Article 7 (2).

Hollander v Mooney 2017 BCCA 238 discussed the Court's jurisdiction to order costs against a non-party and held that it is limited to special circumstances such as fraudulent conduct, abuse of process, gross misconduct, or circumstances where the non-party is the «real litigant»: Anchorage Management Services Ltd. v. 465404 B.C. Inc., 1999 BCCA 771at para. 21; Perez v. Galambos, 2008 BCCA 382at paras. 17 — 18; and Animal Welfare at paras. 53 — 58.

There are time limits for suing, but most jurisdictions in Canada, including Ontario, have lots of special rules and exceptions for abuse cases.

However, there is also a possibility that the Special Tribunal will consider that it no longer has jurisdiction over cases involving Nakheel, including those already commenced before the Special Tribunal, as it's jurisdiction is limited by Decree No. 57 to only Dubai World and its subsidiaries, and that jurisdiction no longer exists once Nakheel is no longer a subsidiary of Dubai World.

Hollander v Mooney 2017 BCCA 238 discussed the Court's jurisdiction to order costs against a non-party and held that it is limited to special circumstances such as fraudulent conduct, abuse of process, gross misconduct, or circumstances where the non-party is the «real litigant»: Anchorage Management... Read more

A court of special, limited jurisdiction that hears only cases that pertain to minors handles these matters.