Sentences with phrase «outcome for the claimant»

We believe strongly that this is something that ought to be addressed in order to improve understanding and outcomes for claimants.

We take each one on its merits and work closely with legal teams to satisfy the precise needs and risk pressure points that help maximise the chances of a successful outcome for the claimant.

The Limitation Act 1980 has been considered in two recent cases, both of which provided favourable outcomes for the claimants involved.

This is so because failing to give reasons might be considered a paradigm case of a legal flaw in the making of a decision that «makes no difference» to the outcome, thus making it entirely possible to conclude that it is «highly likely» that the outcome for the claimant would have been the same even if the «conduct complained of» — that is, the failure to give reasons — had not occurred.

Hearing dates may be months in the future, and they don't necessarily produce a positive outcome for the claimant.

Not exact matches

Hence indirectly it appears that the claimant was prejudiced in the final outcome by its failure to apply for an interim injunction.

However, in this case the criteria for inclusion depended on the outcome of the action; the claimant had described the class as the victims of inflated air freight prices, rather than as members of a pre-existing class, as the stallholders in Covent Garden or members of a Labour party constituency association had been in cases going back to 1901.

Indeed, it is congenial for judges to know that the claimants who appear before them are not putting their personal assets at risk, whatever the outcome of the individual case.

Therefore, the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the tribunal should have reviewed all the practical outcomes of reinstating the claimant, when it was time for the remedy hearing (or the date from which the re-engagement would be effective.)

While it is theoretically possible for native title disputes to be settled quickly and cooperatively, the combination of procedural and evidential complexity, high stakes, multiple parties, uncertainty of outcome, and a winner - take - all approach means that most cases are heavily litigated, go on for years, cost a fortune in legal and other costs — and often result in crushing disappointment, since claimants bear the onus of proof in difficult circumstances.»

Faced with an argument that NICE's refusal to disclose the model was of itself a distinct and challengeable decision and the claimant had therefore unduly delayed in bringing a claim, having waited (some 18 months) for the final outcome of the decision - making process, Richards LJ indicated (albeit apparently obiter) that he considered it more likely that an earlier challenge would have been considered premature and inappropriate, as the outcome of the process as a whole was unclear and may have proved acceptable to the claimant.

Representing only claimants with traumatic brain injuries and spinal injuries, Cari liaises with her clients and their case managers, treating clinicians, expert witnesses and support team to ensure that the best possible outcome (both in terms of compensation and rehabilitation) is reached for her clients.

Noting that «there is no reason why the fact that the applicant has a private interest in the outcome should be fatal, provided that the public interest test is satisfied», Jackson LJ's initial report identifies the apparent contradiction between the «no private interest» test and the requirement in claims involving human rights arguments for the claimant to have been «personally or directly affected» by the violation.

Jane commented: «As a claimant lawyer and APIL member for the last 20 years my key focus is to ensure the best possible outcome for clients - both from a rehabilitation and damages perspective.»

It did not compel the legal approach contended for by the claimant nor the outcome for which he contended on the different facts of this case.

Many governments are not yet clear what they want the native title process to achieve, in terms of meaningful outcomes for either the claimant group or other parties.

One simple way to work towards economic development for native title claimants and holders would be to align governments» policy approaches in broader Indigenous affairs portfolios with the processes of and outcomes from these agreements.

... the opportunity to negotiate an alternative settlement providing for the delivery of appropriate and tangible outcomes to claimants in exchange for the surrender of any possible native title rights and interests over the claim area.

Finally, an opportunity for a negotiated outcome arises where a claimant group, although unlikely to satisfy the legal tests for obtaining a native title determination, nevertheless is able to show that its members are the traditional owners of a particular area and have a continuing connection to that country.

Q4: Please provide your views on the requirement that a body corporate hold and manage the outcomes for the native title claimants, including what might be the appropriate model (s) for this body.

For example, if a mediator has intimate knowledge of the area and the claimant group, or other Indigenous groups residing in the area, then he or she may run the mediation with a predetermined outcome in mind.

An important aspect of the process is ongoing achievement of meaningful outcomes, rather than locking claimants into waiting for an all - or - nothing settlement choice at some stage in the future.

Providing for presumptions and shifting the burden of proof can lead to better outcomes for native title claimants.

However, this reform alone may not lead to better outcomes for native title claimants.

The Guidelines provide information about the level of proof required for different outcomes, the assessment of proof, the form the proof might take, the kind of government assistance that may be made available to claimants such as mapping, access to archival records, and the confidentiality of materials.

respond to the long term strategic plans of NTRBs and claimant groups; not be limited to native title outcomes, but instead provide the opportunity for NTRBs to assist in addressing social and economic development of traditional owner groups;