Sentences with phrase «where claimants»

The cornerstone of the implementation of the LSSP was land summits within the sub-regions where the claimants met with the aim of either resolving overlaps at the summit or agreeing on a process that would lead to a resolution of the overlap.

By all means, there are plenty of completely legitimate claims that are made following car accidents where the claimants really did receive serious injuries.

«However, it seems that for the majority of cases where claimants are domiciled in England and injured either here or abroad by someone domiciled and insured abroad but within the European Economic Area or a contracting country, it will be possible to issue proceedings against the foreign insurer here with far greater facility, with concomitant cost savings and greater speed,» he adds.

However, it was reversed in Surtees where the claimants» appeals were allowed in relation to pay protection, and also in relation to one particular point concerning collective bargaining and the material factor defence which had arisen in litigation over the pre-Green Book system.

As a result there should be fewer cases, such as OBG, where the claimants cherry pick the most favourable features of each tort and ignore the requisite limiting features.

By requiring tribunals to make decisions on immigration law, in which they do not have specialist knowledge, there may also be practical difficulties, especially where claimants are unrepresented.

In the world of YouTube and online video content where claimants will often send automated DMCA notices, this may very well change the landscape as parties may need to demonstrate that fair use was considered before a notice is sent.

The litigation involves claims by pension funds or by life companies in respect of their pensions business for compensation where those claimants have received foreign income dividends which carried no right to a tax credit.

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 there.

In the «opt - out» system, where claimants are in the case unless they take the initiative to remove themselves, most do not even know they are litigants.

The case concerns the interpretation of Article 1F (a) of the 1951 Refugee Convention, which denies refugee protection where claimants themselves have committed or are complicit in the commission of international crimes.

Perhaps the best examples of this section of the market come from the world of in bilateral investment treaty arbitration where claimants are almost invariably «Davids» because «Goliath» (the respondent state) has expropriated their assets.

If the agreement between the parties is drafted as a deed, the deadline for making a claim in contract can be extended to 12 years after it is completed, while the time limit for making a claim in tort can be extended by up to 15 years where claimants can prove there was hidden damage which was unknown to them and which they could not reasonably be expected to have discovered at the time.

«Prohibitions against the unauthorized practice of law are for the protection of the public, and are even more important in the context of the Settlement Agreement, where claimants are recovering from traumatic experiences and are more likely to be in a vulnerable position as a result.»

We are also familiar with the myriad of cost sharing agreements and client constitution arrangements that bind group litigation, which may be especially complex where claimants have different preliminary challenges to their specific claims.

Car Giant concerned a costs judgment where the claimants had failed to beat a Pt 36 offer.

Separately, the small claims limit for road traffic accident cases will be raised from # 1,000 to # 5,000, pushing most whiplash cases to the small claims track, where claimants can not claim for their legal costs.

The appeals concerned claims for damages for mesothelioma where the claimants had some occupational exposure to asbestos (Mrs Sienkiewicz) or exposure when a pupil at Bowring Comprehensive School (Mrs Willmore).

«The Ministry of Justice is consulting on proposals that would increase the number of disputed compensation cases heard by small claims courts — where claimants have to pay their own legal fees even if they win.

This has allowed HMRC to update the tax credits award automatically with the extra child disability amounts, even where claimants have not directly notified them about the benefit.

A longer commute is considered acceptable under the following circumstances: 1) «it is not uncommon given the place where the claimant resides» or 2) it is comparable to «the claimant's daily commuting time to or from their place of work» at its previous job.

The Government's response to that report, published today, commits to carrying out a review of the remaining cases where Concentrix amended or terminated a tax credit award but where the claimant did not request a mandatory reconsideration (the first step in the appeals process).

The practice direction at the time made it compulsory for the parties to consider structuring part of the award, in cases where the claimant was a child, or lacked capacity, and the future losses were in excess of # 500,000.

It is that general damages for distress are awarded in only two situations (i) where the claimant has suffered damage, presumably financial loss, and (ii) where the personal data have been processed for artistic purposes, literary purposes or the purposes of journalism.

Therefore all work on their budgets is wasted except in the handful of cases which go to trial and where the claimant fails to beat the Pt 36.

As regards ground 2, the Court found that where the claimant's financial resources were to be considered, the hearings should be in private with such information being kept confidential.

In addition, in cases where a claimant lacks legal capacity to manage their affairs, the cost of the Deputy's fees after year two should involve a periodical payments order, save in exceptional circumstances, decided by the court.

This meant that, even if the claimant lost their claim, they only need to pay # 5,000 in costs to the other side, or # 10,000 where the claimant was an organisation.

Where a claimant is incapable of obtaining their just remedy their right was never exercised.

At the hearing fee stage, where the Claimant did not pay the fee and had not successfully applied for the fees to be waived, the claim would be rejected or dismissed.

It can be discerned from Foskett J's judgment that, in a case where the Claimant's prospects of success were plainly much better than such an offer would suggest, and if no rationale was provided by the Claimant's representatives as to the basis for the offer, there is a chance that the court might deem the offer not to have been a genuine offer to settle.

Perhaps less everyday is Hogg v Dover College [1990] ICR 39, EAT, where the claimant's unfair dismissal claim succeeded even though he was still in the respondent's employ.

In Huck v Robson [2002] EWCA Civ 398, [2003] 2 WLR 1340, (an RTA case), where the claimant made a 95 % offer on liability apparently purely for tactical reasons and not because of the realistic likelihood of such a finding being made, Schiemann LJ held that:

But where the claimant had suffered a genuine wrong to which his own unlawful conduct is merely incidental, he ought to succeed.

It also arises in cases where the claimant has suffered brain injuries in an accident which have caused personality changes and led to criminal behaviour.

Indeed, his understanding from what was communicated to him during the course of that interview was that it would be that Interviewer who would proceed to make the recommendation... Where a claimant has been led to believe by both statements made by a person who was an Independent Merits Reviewer and by that person's conduct in conducting a hearing or interview, that the claim is being processed by that person, the claimant has a legitimate expectation that the process will be completed by that person.

Where the claimant shows a greater than 51 % chance of success it would be surprising in any event to see his claim for interim relief fail; where the employment judge assesses the chance of success at more than about 40 % he ought to be required to give cogent reasons for refusing the application.

Here, the judge decided that costs exceeding the budget were unrecoverable in circumstances where the claimant had not kept the court nor defendant informed of the overspend.

The suggestion of this article is that the «pretty good chance of success» test ought to stand alone; moreover, if the blunt instrument of percentage assessment is to be used, it ought to be recognised that «a pretty good chance» is capable of applying to any case where the claimant shows a greater than (say) 40 — 45 % chance of success.

In their submissions the police relied heavily on the earlier case of «C» v The Chief Constable of «A» Police [2006] EWHC 2352 (Admin), [2006] All ER (D) 124 (Sep), another instance where a claimant sought to have a search warrant set aside.

This criterion refers to the country where the claimant has his habitual residence, or to another Member State which a particularly close link can be established with.

Where a claimant with a valid claim seeks to dishonestly enhance that claim or conspires with another so as to enable that person to present an exaggerated or groundless claim, should the claimant be struck out and be denied all compensation despite having a valid cause of action?

Conversely, simply delaying service of the claim form while awaiting a fuller particularisation of the Particulars of Claim generally will not be a sufficiently good reason for delaying service of the claim form; nor will a claimant's desire to delay service in order to await some other development in the case; whether the nature of the claim was brought to the attention of the defendant before expiry of the time for service; where the claimant has taken all reasonable steps to serve the claim form, but been unable to do so, will generally suffice as a very good reason for failure to serve, whereas a mere oversight in failing to serve in time will not; and provided that the prospective defendant has not acted obstructively, he is under no obligation to give any positive assistance to the claimant to serve the claim form.

That was the action where the claimant substantially exceeded the approved budget in a defamation pilot scheme case.

A Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of dealing with an application to extend time for service of proceedings, in circumstances where the Claimant had protectively issued the claim without first asking if a limitation amnesty could be agreed.

However, judges in Scotland have not demonstrated a particular willingness to use that provision — and it will only be used where the claimant can convince the court that there is a good reason why they should do so.

There are personal injury cases where the claimant failed to include reference to an injury in the CL - 22 Insurance Claim Application and the form was used against them.

«Injury to feelings awards can be made even where a claimant has suffered no financial loss.

emphasises the difficulties a defendant faces in resisting an application for permission to serve out of the jurisdiction in a personal injury case where the claimant is resident in this country and is suffering a continuing loss.

■ a fee of between # 150 - # 250 to begin a claim, plus between # 250 - # 1250 for a hearing, with no limit on the maximum award; or ■ a single fee of between # 200 - # 600 where the maximum award is limited to # 30,000, with the option of an additional fee of # 1,750 where the claimant seeks an award above this amount.