``... if it appears at the time the decision on pre-trial detention is taken that the «officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power» is liable to intervene in the subsequent proceedings as a representative of the prosecuting authority, then he could not be regarded as independent of
the parties at that preliminary stage as it is possible for him to become one of the parties at a later stage.»
Not exact matches
For example, when the Apple / Samsung global patent litigation disputes started a few years ago, some commentators attributed the
parties» decision not to litigate in Canada to inter alia, our lengthy discovery process and our apparent reluctance to narrow the issues early on (for example by providing claim charts (for both validity and infringement)
at a
preliminary stage).
At first glance, this appears to be a significant change to Rule 23 (e), requiring settling parties to provide significantly more information at the preliminary approval stage than Rule 23 previously require
At first glance, this appears to be a significant change to Rule 23 (e), requiring settling
parties to provide significantly more information
at the preliminary approval stage than Rule 23 previously require
at the
preliminary approval
stage than Rule 23 previously required.