Sentences with phrase «whether claimant»

The parties are intended to be primarily undertaking a fact finding exercise to determine whether the claimant's native title rights and interests exist and how those rights and interests should be legally recognised.

The issue whether this Claimant is or is not fairly described as an «impostor» can not be isolated and resolved without reference to Sikh doctrines and traditions.

Last, to further streamline the DRS, the final report recommends that paper review Arbitrations be conducted not only for medical and rehabilitation claims valued less than $ 10,000 but also to determine whether a claimant's injuries fall within the MIG.

In such cases, the pursuit of fairness required either a full trial or some form of limited enquiry to allow the claimant and / or his witness to contribute in order to assess whether the claimant was fundamentally dishonest.

WALLER LJ: The issue was whether the claimant should have advised the defendant that she might be eligible for legal aid earlier than it did.

In this case, the law of attribution would attribute to the claimant the knowledge and the wrongdoing of S, save for the question whether the claimant was the victim of the wrongdoing or the perpetrator of it.

The key issue was whether the claimant was entitled to recover a success fee under a CFA entered into before 1 April 2013 — such recovery was banned for cases starting on or after that date.

In Peters v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority [2009] EWCA Civ 145, [2009] All ER (D) 24 (Mar) the Court of Appeal (CA) considered the issue as to whether a claimant's care and accommodation costs should be borne by the tortfeasor or the local authority that was charged with the statutory duty of making arrangements for providing care and accommodation to the claimant.

In the context of the trial of preliminary issues, however, his Lordship would say nothing about whether the claimant would in fact be able to recover such damages from the Secretary of State.

The principal issue on appeal was whether the claimant was entitled as of right to choose damages rather than provision of care and accommodation by the council.

Every personal injury lawyer, whether claimant or defendant, will have a tale of claims for paper cuts or the unfortunate person who managed to sustain separate injuries to each of their digits.

The key issue on appeal was whether the claimant, in using the parkland, had been the council's «visitor» within the meaning of the 1957 Act.

This issue hung on whether the claimant had been the council's «implied licensee» when he entered the parkland, there being no suggestion that the claimant was the council's «invitee» or «express licensee».

In Taylor v. Aviva there was a threshold legal issue as to whether the claimant was involved in an «accident».

The decision in Totalise plc v The Motley Fool Ltd [2001] EMLR 750 emphasised that the courts are not obliged to provide such relief and can consider wider matters such as the gravity of the defamatory allegations, whether the claimant has a strong prima facie case against the defendant, the size and extent of the potential readership and whether the claimant had any other available method of identifying the authors.

In his words, Section 58C (2)- (5) of the Bill provides that in «any viable clinical negligence case the costs of the claimant's expert reports should fall upon the public purse — regardless of whether the claimant finally wins or loses».

This case involved a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the claimant was precluded from advancing a claim for income replacement benefits under the SABS - 2010 because he had been driving with a suspended licence at the time of the accident.

This case involved a preliminary issue hearing to determine whether the claimant could proceed to arbitration when she refused to attend for an assessment of her attendant care needs.

One of the issues before the arbitrator was whether the claimant was entitled to receive attendant care benefits and if so, for what periods and in what amounts.

The arbitrator had to decide whether the Claimant could access $ 1 million in UMP Coverage in her tort claim along with an additional $ 1 million in coverage for her FCA claim or whether both claims were covered by a single limit.

the question is whether the claimant has been denied a benefit that is granted to a comparator group».

As a result, the Court side - stepped the crucial question of whether the claimant was adequately accommodated.

Therefore, the refusal to accommodate the claimant's beliefs was justified and it was irrelevant whether the claimant could be accommodated without adversely affecting the provision of the service that the council was obliged to provide.

Finally, the question of whether a claimant could challenge a PSPO on the basis of the Equality Act still remains unclear.

The Tribunal also accepted the argument that an assessment of whether a claimant had made reasonable efforts to meet family status obligations (i.e. to self - accommodate) does not belong at the prima facie discrimination stage.

The duty of care changes according to whether the defendant is the owner or occupier and whether the claimant is a trespasser, guest or customer.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) will use a five - step process to evaluate the claim, asking whether the claimant worked during the disability period, whether he or she suffered a severe impairment, whether the impairment met or equaled the requirements of a listed impairment, whether the worker could return to past work or perform relevant work, and whether he or she could find other work in the national economy.

Sale of goods (fob)-- Cargo of gasoil delivered to Nigeria — Buyer alleging cargo off specification — Seller bringing proceedings in England claiming negative declaratory relief and seeking summary judgment — Whether claimant entitled to summary judgment — CPR 24.

Admiralty practice — Pleading — Claimant shipowner suing cargo insurer under general average guarantee — Cargo insurer pleading defence of unseaworthiness — Whether adequate factual foundations for allegation — Whether claimant entitled to summary judgment.

100 (concerning whether a claimant was entitled to declarations from the High Court against the European Commission that the claimant could be under no liability under the doctrine of economic continuity for a predecessor's infringement of Article 101 TFEU)

Contract — Counterclaim for damages for repudiatory breach or renunciation — Contract terminated by defendant by reason of claimant going into administration — Whether claimant in repudiatory breach — Whether defendant could rely upon repudiation or renunciation where termination was not based on breach.

Other relevant factors include whether the claimant contributed to the parent's estate, the standard of living of the claimant and whether he or she is in financial need.

The Court of Appeal has released a decision placing the onus on an insurer for determining whether a claimant is catastrophically impaired.

[30] Any notion of catastrophic injury, other than the specific meaning ascribed to that term by the legislation must be discarded when considering whether a claimant meets the statutory test.

Thus, in addition to having to decide whether the claimant was sexually abused, the courts had decide whether or not that was the result of «systemic negligence» on the part of the abuser's employer or the negligence of some other person for whom the employer was responsible.

(ii) in practical terms, in a case such as the instant, it was impossible to show uniqueness, so the policy was incapable of fulfilment because (a) it would always be possible for another patient to emerge who was appropriately comparable; and (b) the comparison depended on how widely a label was drawn by the defendant, for example whether the claimant should be compared to any cancer patient who suffered unpleasant side effects or to something more specific;

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).

Imperial Cancer Research Fund v Ove Arup [2009] All ER (D) 282 (Jun); FG Hawkes v Beli Shipping [2009] All ER (D) 207 (Jul); and Sodastream v Coates [2009] All ER (D) 22 (Aug): while CPR 7.6 (2) does not impose a threshold set of conditions, nonetheless those requirements will always be relevant to the exercise of discretion on such an application, but the fact that the conditions are not satisfied is not necessarily determinative of the outcome of a CPR 7.6 (2) application; whether the claim has become statute barred since the date on which the claim form was issued is a matter of considerable importance, since a time extension would disturb the entitlement of the potential defendant to be free of the possibility of any claim; whether the claimant was reliant on further information which had not yet been forthcoming so as to determine whether or not a viable claim existed, is a relevant consideration.

In two conjoined cases, (Essop and Naeem) the Supreme Court considered whether a claimant in an indirect discrimination claim has to prove the reason why a PCP puts (or would put) an affected group at a particular disadvantage, and whether the reason has to relate to the protected characteristic.

West Coast LEAF and the Community Legal Assistance Society (CLAS) were jointly granted leave to intervene in Denton v British Columbia, a case that addresses whether a claimant who was denied workers compensation benefits is barred from challenging that denial on equality grounds under the Charter because she did not raise the argument at an earlier stage of her case.

The claimant would be required to wait for 6 months before obtaining the medical report, as an examination at that point would enable the expert to determine whether the claimant is still suffering symptoms.

Moreover, the open letter accuses some respondents of refusing to consider settling matters before they reached tribunal because they wanted to «call the claimants bluff» and see whether the claimant would pay the fee.

A third issue is whether the claimant can seek, not compensation from the tortfeasor, but an indemnity from the tortfeasor for his liability to his victims.

Cases such as Gray pose the question of whether the claimant, having been convicted of a crime, can seek compensation from the tortfeasor for imprisonment flowing from that conviction, it being alleged that the crime would not have been committed but for the defendant's tort.

The lead case is Gosling v Screwfix [2015] in which Judge Moloney held that the phrase must be interpreted «purposively and contextually» to determine whether the claimant is «deserving» of the costs protection afforded by QOCS.

If a claimant who has suffered a particular type of injury would reasonably be inhibited by the injury from instituting proceedings, then that is a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the claimant would have considered the injury sufficiently serious to justify proceedings.

In the Court of Appeal in Clunis, counsel for the claimant had argued that the courts should look at the seriousness and circumstances of the offence in order to determine whether the claimant should be allowed to maintain a cause of action.

Mr Justice Cooke held in Nomura International plc v Granada Group Ltd and others [2007] EWHC 642 (Comm), [2007] All ER (D) 404 (Mar) that it depends on whether the claimant can properly identify the essence of the tort or breach of contract complained of and, if given appropriate time to marshall what he knows, is in a position to formulate particulars of claim.

n Baier v Alberta, 2007 SCC 31 [Baier], Justice Rothstein of the Supreme Court of Canada articulated a test for whether an underinclusive statutory platform of expression infringes section 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and thus whether a claimant has a positive entitlement to access that platform.

(Security for costs; whether Claimant Company in substance a Defendant and so immune from SFC order).