Sentences with phrase «recent judgments from courts»

It is important, given the level of scrutiny over price evaluation, and given other recent judgments from courts in other member states, that authorities ensure that the methodology they select is:

Not exact matches

The governor, who said there was nothing wrong with the legal system in Nigeria, added that «in recent times, politicians like President Buhari are the ones responsible for the rot in the judiciary because of their desperation to use the courts to foist one party state on Nigerians with conflicting judgments from election tribunals.»

«The further suggestions in Lord Carey's statement that recent court judgments which have not upheld claims of unlawful discrimination against Christians in the workplace are a threat to the social order and a step away from barring Christians from any employment is scaremongering, and a desperate cry from those unrepresentative few who are trying to retain the kind of privileges for religion that have no place in our society.»

During Justice Questions yesterday, the issue of votes for prisoners was raised on the back of the recent judgment from the European Court of Human Rights.

McCain was responding to a question from the mother of a boy with autism, who asked about a recent story that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program had issued a judgment in favor of an unnamed child whose family claimed regressive encephalopathy and symptoms of autism were caused by thimerosal.

Jersey partner, Andreas Kistler, and senior associate, Alexa Saunders, spoke about recent amendments to the Trusts (Jersey) Law 1984 and also spoke about the first judgments from the Royal Court of Jersey regarding the Jersey foundation.

This case follows on from the recent judgment in Sanum Investments Ltd v Government of the Lao People's Democratic Republic [2016] SGCA 57, in which the Singapore Court of Appeal found that an investor - State arbitral tribunal did have jurisdiction to hear claims against the Government of Laos.

Considering that the same district court allowed Apple to leverage a couple of recent Supreme Court opinions concerning fee - shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys» fees from Samsung, it would seem just fair for Samsung to be allowed to make an Alice argument now, just in time before Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following the recent $ 119 million jury verdict (which was disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrcourt allowed Apple to leverage a couple of recent Supreme Court opinions concerning fee - shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys» fees from Samsung, it would seem just fair for Samsung to be allowed to make an Alice argument now, just in time before Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following the recent $ 119 million jury verdict (which was disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrCourt opinions concerning fee - shifting in connection with its pursuit of a recovery of attorneys» fees from Samsung, it would seem just fair for Samsung to be allowed to make an Alice argument now, just in time before Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the parties» motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) following the recent $ 119 million jury verdict (which was disappointing enough for Apple to request a retrial).

I was surprised to read in Eric Appleby's recent post that fully 70 % of judgments received from the courts are selected for reporting in Maritime Law Books» print reporters; I would be interested to know what the proportion is for Ontario judgments and the Ontario Reports.

The importance of the third point above is demonstrated by the recent decision of the European Union Court of Justice (EUCJ) which in September 2014 gave judgment in the appeal from the General Court in the dispute between the Groupement des cartes bancaires and the European Commission (Groupement des cartes bancaires v European Commission C - 67 / 13 P (CB)-RRB-.

My own experience of tribunals and the courts began in the year 2000 and the most recent judgment that CANLII finds by searching on my name — http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/#search/jId=bc&sort=decisionDate&id=%22Budgell%22 — dates from 2012, but if I'm able to proceed with the action I now have in mind then there will be at least one more judgment added to that list.

This trend stems from the recent Supreme Court of Canada case, Hryniak v Mauldin, which held that «summary judgment rules must be interpreted broadly, favouring proportionality and fair access to affordable, timely and just adjudication of claims.»

Raymond Hill's article in the Bloomberg BNA Viewpoint series examines the Court of Justice's line of case law on single / multiple supplies following on from the Tellmer decision — and particularly the recent judgment in Wojskowa.

A recent judgment from the Alberta Court of Appeal in R v Wagar, 2015 ABCA 327 (CanLII), suggests that trial judges in Canada would do well to actively caution themselves in the same way.

Another example may be found in the recent case of Brent Bish on behalf of Ian Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corporation, Cardinal River Operations, SCC Case No 36636, leave to appeal granted from the judgment in Stewart v Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2015 ABCA 225 (CanLII), where Jennifer Koshan points to the missing voices of five human rights commissions (who had applied to intervene jointly), which, had they been allowed to intervene, could have contributed meaningfully by assisting the court in a case where the test for discrimination was a live issue.

Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts and DIFC Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts awards Dubai Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts jurisdiction in «conduit» cases: The Judicial Tribunal for the Dubai Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts and the DIFC Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts, established in 2016 to rule on conflicts of jurisdiction and conflicts of judgments between the two courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located courts, has issued two recent decisions in cases where claimants obtained an order from the DIFC Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located Courts recognising arbitral awards made outside the DIFC, where there was no connection with the DIFC, and where the order recognising the award was referred for enforcement to the Dubai courts for enforcement against assets located courts for enforcement against assets located there.

In a recent judgment the High Court determined that the bank was in breach of the requirement not to withhold its consent unreasonably to the release of a secured asset from its security package for the purposes of sale.

Jamie Liddington, Head of Employment, provides an analysis on the recent judgment from the DIFC Court of First Instance.

In a recent case from British Columbia, the BC Court of Appeal confirmed the lower court's judgment that failing to pay an employee their annual bonus can be constructive dismissal, even if the bonus was ostensibly discretionary and not a written term of the employment contCourt of Appeal confirmed the lower court's judgment that failing to pay an employee their annual bonus can be constructive dismissal, even if the bonus was ostensibly discretionary and not a written term of the employment contcourt's judgment that failing to pay an employee their annual bonus can be constructive dismissal, even if the bonus was ostensibly discretionary and not a written term of the employment contract.

MICHAL OVÁDEK reports on the efforts of Slovakia to get rid of a blatantly unjust amnesty law from the era of authoritarian president Vladimir Meciar in the 1990s, including a constitutional amendment and a recent judgment of the Constitutional Court.