Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran )"

Transcription

1 WEEK 3 Topic Pleading and Joinder of claims and parties, Representative and Class Actions 1) Res Judicata (Colbran ) Res judicata is a type of plea made in court that precludes the relitgation of certain claims of actions between two parties on the same legal issue. This plea is also known as litigation estoppels, cause of action estoppels. The following case looks at this type of Estoppel Henderson v Henderson Wigram VC: Where a given matter becomes the subject matter of litigation in and of adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires that parties to that litigation bring forward their whole case and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward only because they have from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident omitted apart of their case. The plea of res judicata applies not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion on, but to every point which properly belonged in the subject of litigation. Port of Melbourne Authority v Anshun This British authority was cited with approval in the HCA case of: Here some worker injured himself on a crane operated by Anshun but hired from the Port Authority. At trial the worker successfully sued for damages and the supreme court of VIC ordered that Anshun and the PMA share burden for damages. After proceedings PMA commenced proceedings against Anshun, claiming an indemnity for payment of damages arising out of their hire purchase agreement. PMA failed in the supreme court and now appeals to the HCA. Gibbs CJ: [His honor cited with approval the passage from Henderson] In considering whether a failure to plead a defence available in an earlier action gives rise to an estoppels in subsequent litigation early authorities distinguished between failure to traverse an allegation made by the other side, and failure to plead affirmative matter which would not have conflicted with any traversable allegation[ In other words you must distinguish between defences to arguments made by the other side, and positive arguments you may have that do not conflict with arguments made by the other side. BTW traversable argument in a legal context means defendable argument.] 1

2 The general rule is that a defendant having a claim available by way of setoff, counterclaim, or cross petition, has an election to so plead it, or to reserve it for a future independent action, and a prior action in which a claim might have been asserted as a setoff, counterclaim, or cross petition is no bar to a subsequent independent action. [So any positive argument that does not conflict with an argument made by the other side may be argued in a new case, however if it was a possible defence to a claim made by the other side you re screwed. This is as the law applies to defendants. In the case of plaintiffs, res judicata applies when the cause of action is exactly the same as in the previous case.] Issue Estoppel There is a further subset of estoppels relating to re-litigation of claims called Issue Estoppel. The following case examines the difference between the two: Arnold v National Westminster Bank The appellant in this case had a negative ruling made on him by a high court judge. It was found on appeal that ruling was erroneous. He now brings proceedings in the house of lords to re-open proceedings. Lord Keith of Kinkel: It is appropriate to commence by noticing the distinction between cause of action estoppels (res judicata) and issue estoppels. Cause of action estoppels arises where the cause of action in the later proceedings is identical to that in earlier proceedings, the latter having been between the same parties or their privies and having involved the same subject matter. In such a case the rule is absolute in relation to all points decided unless fraud or collusion is alleged. [Issue estoppels involve the same parties but different causes of action, however they have a common element to them e.g the existence of a valid contract or a duty of care.] [His lordship then referred to the passage from Henderson] It will be seen that this passage appears to have opened the door towards the possibility that cause of action estoppels may not apply in its full rigour where the earlier decision did not in terms include, because they were not raised points which might have been vital to the existence or non existence in a cause of action. Issue estoppels may arise where a particular issue forming a necessary ingredient in a cause of action has been litigated and decided and in subsequent proceedings between the same parties involving a different cause of action to which the same issue is relevant one of the parties seeks to reopen that issue. Issue estoppels has been extended to cover not only the cases where a particular point has been raised and specifically determined in earlier proceedings, but also where in the subsequent proceedings it is sought to raise a point which might have been but not raised in the earlier. 2

3 It is important to note that res judicata will only apply if there has been an earlier concluded decision. A simple discontinuation of proceedings will not warrant the application of res judicata (Running Pygmy productions) A case may be re-opened if it would aid in the administration of justice (s56 CPA) 2) Joinder In the law, a cause of action is a set of facts sufficient to justify a right to sue to obtain money, property, or the enforcement of a right against another party. In English law the document containing such facts is called a statement of claim. Joinder: Joinder is a legal term, which refers to the process of joining two or more legal issues together to be heard in one hearing or trial. It is done when the issues or parties involved overlap sufficiently to make the process more efficient or more fair. It is important to note the difference between joinder of causes of action and joinder of parties. A joinder of a cause of action is dealt with under rule 6.18 of the UCPR. Under a joinder for a cause of action, multiple causes of action are levied against one defendant. Under a joinder for parties, the cause of action must be sufficiently common between multiple parties to necessitate a joinder. (UCPR 6.19) Generally speaking A plaintiff may join more than one cause of action when he or she sues in the same capacity and claims the defendant to be liable in the same capacity in respect of each cause of action (joinder of causes of action) An example might be where the plaintiff as employee sues the defendant as employer for unpaid wages and not providing a safe working environment. The two causes of action are completely separate, but both rely upon the plaintiff and the defendant in the same capacities. Rule 6.18 also provides for joining of causes of action where the defendant is the executor of the liable party s estate. Joinders may also be used in tort, whereby a prospective plaintiff will attempt to join as many possible defendants as possible to an action in order to gain maximum recovery of damages. (Joinder of parties) A party effecting a joinder must consider the costs in doing so. A party is not automatically entitled to a sanderson or bullock ruling where the costs of a party to a joinder who is not found liable are paid for by the liable party. The idea of joinders are dealt with in the UCPR 6.19 Under UCPR 6.19 two or more parties may be joined together as plaintiffs or defendants if: Allowing each to have separate trials would give rise to a common question of law or fact AND All rights to relief claimed in the originating process(proceedings) arise from a common transaction or a series of common transactions. 3

4 Or a court may grant leave for such a joinder. The second part of rule 6.19 means that if the relief that the plaintiff seeks arises out of a series of transactions (or events) then they may be joined with another plaintiff whose claim arises from the same series of transactions. What constitutes a common transaction is discussed in the following cases: Transaction is liberally construed and is not restricted to a breach of a contractual relationship. Bendir v Anson (1936) 3 All ER 326 Lord Wright considered the construction of a building which blocked the light to two buildings on the opposite side of the street was a transaction. Birtles v Commonwealth [1960] VR 247 A solicitors failure to issue a notice of the plaintiffs intention to sue within the time limit was a transaction allowing the joinder of the solicitor as a co-defendant in the plaintiff s personal injury action. The plaintiffs must show a causal act or breach by the defendant which damaged the plaintiffs. Payne v Young (1980)145 CLR 609 Seven plaintiffs joined in an action for the repayment of slaughter fees and for a declaration that the regulations under which the fees were levied were invalid as imposing an excise. The fees were levied for meat inspections. High Court upheld the defendants arguments against joinder. Each plaintiff had entered into a separate transaction with the inspection authorities. The transactions were not related. There was a common interest in the validity of the regulations but this was not enough to justify joinder. Barwick CJ Mason J there was no common participation by the plaintiffs in the inspection services each series of transactions was peculiar to each individual plaintiff Bishop v Bridgelands Securities A bunch of plaintiffs wished to join together to sue Bridgelands. The claim arose from a bunch of letters sent from the defendants to the plaintiffs, which caused them to invest in unsecured companies which eventually went bankrupt causing massive financial loss. The court felt obliged to use the precedent of Young, because each letter contained different circumstances and transactions. However the court still ordered a joinder to be used under UCPR 6.22 because it was felt that a joinder would lower the costs and time delay for the proceedings. 3) Representative and Class Actions (Colbran ) Part A. The aim is to provide a broad overview of the law and practice relating to representative and class actions, and the origin of the law. It is important to recognize the factual situations when a class action might apply so please ensure that your reading explores the relevant facts. Wtf is a class action? 4

5 Class actions (also known as representative actions) are an equitable practice which allows a single person or party to bring proceedings against a defendant on behalf of a number of other plaintiffs with the same interests. Under UCPR 7.4, a class action may be brought where a single person can represent a group of either defendants or plaintiffs if they have the SAME interests. (e.g denying liability in tort, or enforcing a contract) The practical consequence of a class action is that if successful, a defendant may be liable not only to the litigating party, but also to all parties joined in the action. Carnie v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd The modern approach to representative actions was discussed in the case of: The appellants were farmers who had obtained credit from the defendant, sought a declaration that certain agreements between themselves and the defendants were in breach of the Credit Act NSW and thus void. The appellants also sought to establish a class action together with parties privy to the same agreements. The defendants challenged the validity of the class action. Mason CJ: Whether the present case was or was not a class action is not the critical question. More than that it is not a question which is susceptible of a precise or instructive answer... Once the existence of numerous parties and the requisite commonality of interest are ascertained the rule is brought into operation subject only to the exercise of the courts power to do otherwise. And that leaves for consideration the question whether the case is one in which the court should in the exercise of that power, make an order that the action should not continue as a representative action. [His honor then referred to several considerations which should be made when deciding whether a representative action should be used] (1) Whether or not consent is required for the group members, the right of such members to opt out of proceedings, (3) the position of persons under a disability, (4) alterations to the description of the group, settlement and discontinuance of proceedings and giving the various notices to the group members. [His honor then said that for rep actions, the interpretation of requisite commonality of interest is to be interpreted liberally in determining whether to allow a rep action] Toohey and Gaudron JJ: [Their honors noted that under legislation a representative action may be commenced by parties with similar interests unless otherwise ordered by a court] If the representative action succeeds those represented will have the benefit of declaratory relief as to the meaning of the Act. Whether they choose to take advantage of such a declaration will be a matter for them. But what if the action fails? [Their honors then referred to the case of Naken v GM of Canada].. the court was clearly concerned as to the consequences of res judicata for those who sought to be represented particularly as a fixed sum was sought for each purchaser of a motor vehicle, though each might still have rights flowing from the contract between themselves and GM. [His honor here is making the comment that the doctrine of Res judicata might 5

6 unfairly prejudice parties in rep action if they lose, making them unable to enforce rights they otherwise would have had] In the argument before the court nothing emerged to show that members of the class in question would be prejudiced by the outcome of this action other than in the obvious sense that they would be bound by the decision of the court... Appeal allowed. While the UCPR deals with representative actions in NSW courts, the Federal court of Australia has separate rules for representative action. Under s33c(1) of the federal court rules a representative action may only be brought under certain circumstances such as: where 7 or more persons wish to bring an action; and the claims of all those persons are in respect of or arise out of the same similar or related circumstances and the claims of all those persons give rise to a substantial common issue of law or fact. It is important to note that the wording in the legislation specifically implies that all these criterion must be met for a representative action. What exactly is defined as a substantial common issue of law or fact is discussed in the case of: Wong v Silkfield The appellants in this case wished to bring a rep action against a vendor of land. At issue was the application of s33c(1) and whether such an action gave rise to a substantial issue of law or fact. The court: The term substantial may have various shades of meaning...in the case of Carnie, Mason, Deane and Dawson JJ expressed the view that to equate the meaning of the phrase same interest with a common ingredient in the cause of action of each member might not adequately reflect the content of the statute. Their honours said that the expression may extend to a significant common interest in the resolution of any question of law or fact arising from in the relevant proceedings. Toohey and Gaudron JJ treated as sufficient a significant question common to all members of the class, to be determined by the grant of declaratory relief. Clearly the purpose of the enactment of this legislation was not to narrow access to the new form of representative proceedings beyond that which applied under regimes considered in cases such as Carnie. This suggests that, when used to identify the threshold requirements of 33C(1), substantial does not indicate that which is large or of special significant or would have a major impact on litigation, but rather is directed to issues which are of real substance. 6

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC UNDER the Defamation Act Plaintiff

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV [2014] NZHC UNDER the Defamation Act Plaintiff IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY CIV-2014-404-001988 [2014] NZHC 2064 UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 BETWEEN AND RAZDAN RAFIQ Plaintiff THE SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

More information

MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Appellant

MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Appellant IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA773/2013 [2014] NZCA 184 BETWEEN MALCOLM JAMES BEATTIE First Appellant ANTHONY JOSEPH REGAN Second Appellant CT NZ GROUP LIMITED (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS CARTAN GLOBAL

More information

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited Plaintiff; and The State of Victoria and Another Defendants. 211 CLR 1, [2002] HCA 27) [2002] HCA 27

Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited Plaintiff; and The State of Victoria and Another Defendants. 211 CLR 1, [2002] HCA 27) [2002] HCA 27 Constitutional Law - State Parliament - Powers - Legislative scheme for representative actions - Whether beyond territorial competence of State Parliament - Whether invalid conferral of nonjudicial power

More information

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA GAGELER J PLAINTIFF S3/2013 PLAINTIFF AND MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP & ANOR DEFENDANTS Plaintiff S3/2013 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2013] HCA 22 26

More information

CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE

CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE CHOICE OF LAW (GOVERNING LAW) BOILERPLATE CLAUSE Need to know A choice of law clause (or governing law clause) enables contracting parties to nominate the law which applies to govern their contract. The

More information

Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED. Updated to 13 April 2017

Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED. Updated to 13 April 2017 Number 41 of 1961 CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 1961 REVISED Updated to 13 April 2017 This Revised Act is an administrative consolidation of the. It is prepared by the Law Reform Commission in accordance with its

More information

TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE

TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE TWO NOTES ON RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING 'PROXIMITY' IN NEGLIGENCE ACTIONS PROXIMITY AND NEGLIGENT ADVICE THE SAN SEBASTIAN CASE Alex Bruce* 1. Introduction In November 1986, the High Court handed down

More information

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000

Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Federal High Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2000 Commencement: 1st May 2000 In exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 254 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 and all powers

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Maclag (No 11) P/L & Anor v Chantay Too P/L (No 2) [2009] QSC 299 PARTIES: MACLAG (NO 11) PTY LTD ACN 010 611 631 AS TRUSTEE FOR THE BURNS FAMILY TRUST (first plaintiff)

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A. D. 2015 CLAIM NO.369 OF 2015 BETWEEN (BERNARD LESLIE ( (AND ( (RACHEL BATTLE (MICHAEL BATTLE (REGISTRAR OF LANDS ----- CLAIMANT DEFENDANTS INTERESTED PARTY BEFORE THE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Schepis & Anor v Esanda Finance Corp Ltd & Anor [2007] QCA 263 PARTIES: ANTHONY SCHEPIS (first plaintiff/first appellant) MICHELE SCHEPIS (second plaintiff/second

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PATRICK O'NEIL, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellant, UNPUBLISHED June 15, 2004 v No. 243356 Wayne Circuit Court M. V. BAROCAS COMPANY, LC No. 99-925999-NZ and CAFÉ

More information

Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors

Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 08-0419 444444444444 THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO, PETITIONER, v. KIA BAILEY AND LARRY BAILEY, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444

More information

Damages in Tort 6. Damages in Contract 18. Restitution 27. Rescission 32. Specific Performance 38. Account of Profits 40.

Damages in Tort 6. Damages in Contract 18. Restitution 27. Rescission 32. Specific Performance 38. Account of Profits 40. LW401 REMEDIES Damages in Tort 6 Damages in Contract 18 Restitution 27 Rescission 32 Specific Performance 38 Account of Profits 40 Injunctions 43 Mareva Orders and Anton Piller Orders 49 Rectification

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Taylor v Stratford & Ors [2003] QSC 427 PARTIES: FILE NO: S6632 of 2003 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: GLENN NEIL TAYLOR (applicant) v GRAHAM STRATFORD (first respondent) and

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS DUANE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 11, 2002 v No. 234182 Oakland Circuit Court HUNTINGTON BANK and LC No. 2000-026472-CP SILVER SHADOW RECOVERY,

More information

Insolvent Companies s 553C

Insolvent Companies s 553C Insolvent Companies s 553C Mutual Credit and Set-offs Jessie Earl Senior Associate Tottle Partners 2 November 2016 Discussion points 1. The provisions 2. The leading authorities 3. The purpose of s 553C

More information

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas

Court of Appeals. First District of Texas Opinion issued July 9, 2013 In The Court of Appeals For The First District of Texas NO. 01-12-00473-CV ROBERT R. BURCHFIELD, Appellant V. PROSPERITY BANK, Appellee On Appeal from the 127th District Court

More information

STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT

STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT STATE PROCEEDINGS ACT Act 5 of 1953 15 October 1954 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1A. Short title 1B. Interpretation PRELIMINARY PART I SUBSTANTIVE LAW 1. Liability of State in contract 2. Liability of State

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Castillon v P & O Ports Ltd [2005] QCA 406 PARTIES: LEONARD CASTILLON (plaintiff/respondent) v P & O PORTS LIMITED ACN 000 049 301 (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S:

More information

Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims

Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims July 2011 page 72 Timing it right: Limitation periods in personal injury claims By SIMONE HERBERT-LOWE Simone Herbert-Lowe is a senior claims solicitor with LawCover and is an Accredited Specialist in

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Eyears v Zufic [2016] QCA 40 PARTIES: MARINA EYEARS (applicant) v PETER ZUFIC as trustee for the PETER AND TANYA ZUFIC FAMILY TRUST trading as CLIENTCARE SOLICITORS

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GLENNA BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION April 10, 2014 9:05 a.m. v No. 313279 Oakland Circuit Court JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, LC No. 2012-124595-CH Defendant-Appellee.

More information

THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD*

THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* THEOPHANOUS v HERALD & WEEKLY TIMES LTD* STEPHENS v WEST AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPERS LTD* Introduction On 12 October 1994 the High Court handed down its judgments in the cases of Theophanous v Herald & Weekly

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Jackson-Knaggs v Queensland Newspapers P/L [2005] QCA 145 MARK ANDREW JACKSON-KNAGGS (applicant/respondent) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING SERVICES AUTHORITY (first

More information

Projects Disputes in Australia: Recent Cases

Projects Disputes in Australia: Recent Cases WHITE PAPER June 2017 Projects Disputes in Australia: Recent Cases The High Court of Australia and courts in other Australian States have recently ruled on matters of significant importance to the country

More information

Waiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications

Waiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications 1 Waiver, Estoppel and Election in the context of adjudication applications Adjudication Forum 13 November 2012 Max Tonkin The Pareto Principal Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto observed in 1906 that 80%

More information

Company Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20

Company Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20 Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 3 (October 1965) Article 3 Company Law: Conwest Exploration Company Limited et al. v. Letain, (1964) S.C.R. 20 Burton B. C. Tait Follow this and additional works

More information

Civil Procedure Lecture Notes Lecture 1: Overview of a Civil Proceeding

Civil Procedure Lecture Notes Lecture 1: Overview of a Civil Proceeding Civil Procedure Lecture Notes Lecture 1: Overview of a Civil Proceeding Civil dispute o Any legal dispute that is not a criminal dispute o Could be either a public or private law matter o Includes relatively

More information

Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Lemons, JJ.

Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Lemons, JJ. Present: Carrico, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, and Lemons, JJ. WELDING, INC. v. Record No. 000836 OPINION BY JUSTICE ELIZABETH B. LACY March 2, 2001 BLAND COUNTY SERVICE AUTHORITY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between STEPHEN LORENZO LODAI. And NAGICO INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. (formerly known as GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between STEPHEN LORENZO LODAI. And NAGICO INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED. (formerly known as GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED) THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2014-01715 Between STEPHEN LORENZO LODAI Claimant And NAGICO INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED (formerly known as GTM INSURANCE COMPANY

More information

VIBERT CREESE (as administrator of the Estate of James Creese, dec' d) Defendant. 2005: October 24 RULING

VIBERT CREESE (as administrator of the Estate of James Creese, dec' d) Defendant. 2005: October 24 RULING THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 318 OF 2004 BETWEEN: DOUGLAS O'NEAL CREESE v Claimant VIBERT CREESE (as administrator

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL LODISH, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 14, 2011 v No. 296748 Oakland Circuit Court JAMES D. CHEROCCI, LC No. 2009-098988-CZ and Defendant/Cross-Defendant-

More information

4021LAW Civil Procedure Notes

4021LAW Civil Procedure Notes 4021LAW Civil Procedure Notes Jurisdiction 5 Cross-Vesting in Practice 5 Case Management 6 Cause of Action 6 Limitation of Actions 6 PIPA 7 Originating Proceedings 8 Joinder of parties 9 Parties Overview

More information

CASE NOTES. Negligence-Breach of statutory duty by employer-defence of contributory negligence-what amounts to.

CASE NOTES. Negligence-Breach of statutory duty by employer-defence of contributory negligence-what amounts to. CASE NOTES KAKOURIS v. GIBBS BURGE & CO. PTY LTD1 Negligence-Breach of statutory duty by employer-defence of contributory negligence-what amounts to. Since Piro v. Foster2 it has been clear law that contributory

More information

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts.

PLEASE NOTE. For more information concerning the history of this Act, please see the Table of Public Acts. PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to November 1, 2003. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: FILE NO/S: No 60 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: The Beach Club Port Douglas Pty Ltd v Page [2005] QSC 195 THE BEACH CLUB PORT DOUGLAS PTY

More information

Chose in Action-Gilt-Novation 01 Contract-Dillwyn v. Llewellyn2

Chose in Action-Gilt-Novation 01 Contract-Dillwyn v. Llewellyn2 OcTOBER 1969] Case Notes 293 scope and nature of the standard of care expected of a reasonable schoolteacher. With the size of classes in State schools increasing and the pressure under which many teachers

More information

APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS

APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL CREDIT ACCOUNT TRADING TERMS AND CONDITIONS These Trading Terms and Conditions are to be read and understood prior to the execution of the Application for Commercial Credit Account.

More information

JUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim.

JUDGMENT. 1 I am required to decide the disputes disclosed by the defendant's. special plea of prescription raised in defence to the plaintiffs claim. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA CASE NO: 5664/2011 In the matter between: EDWARD THOMPSON Plaintiff and CITY OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY Defendant JUDGMENT Tuchten

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STEPHANIE LADA, individually and as Next Friend for LOGAN SLIWA, UNPUBLISHED November 19, 2013 Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellant/Cross-appellee v No. 310519 Macomb

More information

2017 PA Super 31. Appeal from the Order of February 25, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No.

2017 PA Super 31. Appeal from the Order of February 25, 2016 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Civil Division at No(s): No. 2017 PA Super 31 THE HARTFORD INSURANCE GROUP ON BEHALF OF CHUNLI CHEN, IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant v. KAFUMBA KAMARA, THRIFTY CAR RENTAL, AND RENTAL CAR FINANCE GROUP, Appellees No.

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PRO-STAFFERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION July 23, 2002 9:05 a.m. v No. 231685 Genesee Circuit Court PREMIER MANUFACTURING SUPPORT LC No. 99-065387-NO

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. January 2004 Term. No

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA. January 2004 Term. No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA January 2004 Term No. 31673 FILED June 23, 2004 released at 3:00 p.m. RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA BETTY GULAS, INDIVIDUALLY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY. Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No [Cite as Ballreich Bros., Inc. v. Criblez, 2010-Ohio-3263.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT HANCOCK COUNTY BALLREICH BROS., INC Plaintiff-Appellee App. Case No. 05-09-36 v. ROGER

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Gemini Nominees Pty Ltd v Queensland Property Partners Pty Ltd ATF The Keith Batt Family Trust [2007] QSC 20 PARTIES: GEMINI NOMINEES PTY LTD (ACN 011 020 536) (plaintiff)

More information

Trials And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: The Landscape Post Malanchuk

Trials And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: The Landscape Post Malanchuk Trials And Appeals In Consolidated Cases: The Landscape Post Malanchuk By JACOB C. LEHMAN, 1 Philadelphia County Member of the Pennsylvania Bar TABLE OF CONTENTS HOW DID WE GET HERE: THE WORLD BEFORE KINCY.....................

More information

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT

CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT c t CROWN PROCEEDINGS ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 20, 2017. It is intended for information and

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No EDA 2013

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P Appellee No EDA 2013 NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 MARGARET ANTHONY, SABRINA WHITAKER, BARBARA PROSSER, SYBIL WHITE AND NATACHA BATTLE IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellants v. ST. JOSEPH

More information

Appellant. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. which dismissed her complaint against PennyMac Corporation and Gwendolyn

Appellant. * Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court. which dismissed her complaint against PennyMac Corporation and Gwendolyn 2019 PA Super 7 PATRICIA GRAY, Appellant v. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA PENNYMAC CORP AND GWENDOLYN L. : JACKSON, Appellees No. 1272 EDA 2018 Appeal from the Order Entered April 5, 2018 in the

More information

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2012-00772 BETWEEN KELVIN DOOLARIE AND FIELD 1 st Claimant RAMCHARAN 2 nd Claimant PROBHADAI SOOKDEO BISSESSAR 1 st Defendant RAMCHARAN 2

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: WorkCover Queensland v AMACA Pty Limited [2012] QCA 240 PARTIES: WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (appellant) v AMACA PTY LIMITED (formerly James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd under NSW

More information

Private International Law A LAWS 2018 Semester

Private International Law A LAWS 2018 Semester Private International Law A LAWS 2018 Semester 1 2015 Table of Contents Topic 1. Introduction and Case Studies... 3 1.1. Fundamental Approach to Conflict of Laws... 3 1.2. Terminology... 3 1.3. Case Studies...

More information

PROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A

PROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A PROCEDURE & PRINCIPLES: ORDER 26A: ORDER 14 & ORDER 14A ISBN 983-41166-7-5 Author: Nasser Hamid Binding: Softcover/Extent: 650 pp Publication Price: MYR 220.00 The law is stated as of July 1, 2004 Chapter

More information

BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK

BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK BUSINESS LAW GUIDEBOOK SECOND EDITION CHARLES YC CHEW CHAPTER 4: CONTRACT: TERMS AND REMEDIES FOR BREACH TEST YOUR KNOWLEDGE 1. The terms of a contract may be either express or implied. Explain what is

More information

Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson. [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal)

Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson. [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal) Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v. Thompson [1971] AC 458 (Privy Council on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Appeal) The place of a tort (the locus delicti) is the place of the act (or omission)

More information

Personal Jurisdiction

Personal Jurisdiction Personal Jurisdiction In personam- suit against a person based on presence in jurisdiction In rem suit based on the presence of property in the jurisdiction (quiet title etc.) In quasi-in-rem judgment

More information

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CARBON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION PATRICK J. LYNCH AND : DIANE R. LYNCH, : Plaintiffs : : v. : No. 11-0143 : U.S. BANK, N.A., AS TRUSTEE, : Defendant : Civil Law

More information

Understanding Legal Terminology in NFA Arbitration Cases

Understanding Legal Terminology in NFA Arbitration Cases Understanding Legal Terminology in NFA Arbitration Cases November 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction...1 Authority to Sue...3 Standing...3 Assignment...3 Power of Attorney...3 Multiple Parties or Claims...4

More information

No. 52,015-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *

No. 52,015-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * * Judgment rendered May 23, 2018. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P. No. 52,015-CA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * IN RE:

More information

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Andre Powell, an incapacitated person, by Yvonne Sherrill, Guardian v. No. 2117 C.D. 2008 James Scott, George Krapf, Jr. and Sons, Inc., The Pep Boys - Manny,

More information

ALR OGLETHORPE, LLC v. Henderson, Ga: Court of Appeals Google Scholar

ALR OGLETHORPE, LLC v. Henderson, Ga: Court of Appeals Google Scholar Page 1 of 5 ALR OGLETHORPE, LLC, et al., v. HENDERSON, et al. A15A2336. Court of Appeals of Georgia, Fourth Division. March 23, 2016. BARNES, P. J., RAY and MCMILLIAN, JJ. BARNES, Presiding Judge. This

More information

MIIAA MEDICAL INDEMNITY FORUM TORT REFORM A DEFENDANT S PERSPECTIVE by Kerrie Chambers, Partner, Ebsworth & Ebsworth

MIIAA MEDICAL INDEMNITY FORUM TORT REFORM A DEFENDANT S PERSPECTIVE by Kerrie Chambers, Partner, Ebsworth & Ebsworth MIIAA MEDICAL INDEMNITY FORUM TORT REFORM 2007 A DEFENDANT S PERSPECTIVE by Kerrie Chambers, Partner, Ebsworth & Ebsworth When the Honourable Justice Ipp was commissioned to inquire into the law of negligence

More information

FENCECOR KONSTRUCSIE CC MOSES KOTANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY

FENCECOR KONSTRUCSIE CC MOSES KOTANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY IN THE NORTH WEST HIGH COURT MAFIKENG CASE NO.: 950/2010 In the matter between: FENCECOR KONSTRUCSIE CC Applicant and MOSES KOTANE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY Respondent CIVIL MATTER KGOELE J DATE OF HEARING :

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Nadao Stott v Lyons and Stott (as executors) [2007] QSC 087 PARTIES: NADAO STOTT (under Part IV, sections 40-44, Succession Act 1981) (applicant) AND FILE NO/S: BS

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MICHAEL P. HUGHES, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 26, 2010 v No. 293354 Mackinac Circuit Court SHEPLER, INC., LC No. 07-006370-NO and Defendant-Appellee, CNA

More information

Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown

Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown Citation: Gallant v. Piccott Date: 20000518 2000 PESCAD 17 Docket: AD-0859 Registry: Charlottetown PROVINCE OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND IN THE SUPREME COURT - APPEAL DIVISION BETWEEN: STEPHEN ARTHUR PICCOTT,

More information

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA No. 1D16-5675 HIGHWOODS PROPERTIES, INC., Appellant, v. MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE COMPANY and SCHINDLER ELEVATOR COMPANY, Appellees. On appeal from the Circuit

More information

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DAVID MILLER Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA ANTHONY PUCCIO AND JOSEPHINE PUCCIO, HIS WIFE, ANGELINE J. PUCCIO, NRT PITTSBURGH,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Bourne v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2018] QSC 231 KATRINA MARGARET BOURNE (applicant) v QUEENSLAND BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COMMISSION

More information

Illinois Official Reports

Illinois Official Reports Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court LSREF2 Nova Investments III, LLC v. Coleman, 2015 IL App (1st) 140184 Appellate Court Caption LSREF2 NOVA INVESTMENTS III, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHELLE

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner,

IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC DCA CASE NO. 3D DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner, IN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF FLORIDA CASE NO. SC10-1922 3DCA CASE NO. 3D09-1475 DOCTOR DIABETIC SUPPLY, INC., Appellant / Petitioner, v. POAP CORP. d/b/a EXCHANGE PLACE, Appellee / Respondent. PETITIONER

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS BAYVIEW FINANCIAL TRADING GROUP LP, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 25, 2005 v No. 262158 Wayne Circuit Court JACK MAVIGLIA and ABN AMRO LC No. 04-416062-CH

More information

Should the Raising of Transactionally-Related Counterclaims Be a Required Part of Defendant's Answer in Virginia Practice

Should the Raising of Transactionally-Related Counterclaims Be a Required Part of Defendant's Answer in Virginia Practice TO: The Bench and Bar of Virginia FROM: Advisory Committee on Rules of Court DATE: October 1, 2007 Should the Raising of Transactionally-Related Counterclaims Be a Required Part of Defendant's Answer in

More information

CHAPTER 1: COURT ADJUDICATION IN THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM 7 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING 7 COURT SUPPRESSION AND NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS ACT 2010 (NSW) 7

CHAPTER 1: COURT ADJUDICATION IN THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM 7 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING 7 COURT SUPPRESSION AND NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS ACT 2010 (NSW) 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: COURT ADJUDICATION IN THE CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM 7 RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING 7 COURT SUPPRESSION AND NON-PUBLICATION ORDERS ACT 2010 (NSW) 7 CHAPTER 2: CASE MANAGEMENT AND THE

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Port Ballidu Pty Ltd v Mullins Lawyers [2017] QSC 91 PARTIES: PORT BALLIDU PTY LTD ACN 010 820 185 (plaintiff) v MULLINS LAWYERS (third defendant) FILE NO/S: No 7459

More information

CHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections.

CHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections. CHAPTER 77 THE GOVERNMENT PROCEEDINGS ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Interpretation. PART I INTERPRETATION. PART II SUBSTANTIVE LAW. 2. Right to sue the Government. 3. Liability of the Government

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: Mayfair Property Holdings Pty Ltd v Southland Packers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] QSC 145 MAYFAIR PROPERTY HOLDINGS PTY LTD (plaintiff) v SOUTHLAND PACKERS PTY

More information

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Betty Fisher, on behalf of the estate of Alice Shaw- Baker, Petitioner,

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court. Betty Fisher, on behalf of the estate of Alice Shaw- Baker, Petitioner, THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA In The Supreme Court Betty Fisher, on behalf of the estate of Alice Shaw- Baker, Petitioner, v. Bessie Huckabee, Kay Passailaigue Slade, Sandra Byrd, and Peter Kouten, Respondents.

More information

Week 2 - Damages in Contract. The plaintiff simply needs to show that there was a breach of contract

Week 2 - Damages in Contract. The plaintiff simply needs to show that there was a breach of contract Week 2 - Damages in Contract In order for the court to award the plaintiff compensatory damages in contract, it must find that: a) Does the plaintiff have a cause of action in contract (e.g breach of contract)?

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TAURUS MOLD, INC, a Michigan Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED January 13, 2009 v No. 282269 Macomb Circuit Court TRW AUTOMOTIVE US, LLC, a Foreign LC No.

More information

APPEALS FROM VCAT TO THE SUPREME COURT

APPEALS FROM VCAT TO THE SUPREME COURT APPEALS FROM VCAT TO THE SUPREME COURT Author: Graeme Peake Date: 15 August, 2018 Copyright 2018 This work is copyright. Apart from any permitted use under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced

More information

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2018

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 03/14/ :00 AM INDEX NO /2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 35 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/14/2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF KINGS --------------------------------------------------------------------------X LANCER INSURANCE COMPANY a/s/o Index No.: 503344/2017 KIM WILLIAMS Plaintiffs,

More information

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown

SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND. Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: Docket: S1-GS Registry: Charlottetown SUPREME COURT OF PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND Citation: Lank v. Government of PEI 2010 PESC 09 Date: 20100218 Docket: S1-GS-16828 Registry: Charlottetown Between: Stephen Lank and Stephen Lank Enterprises Inc.

More information

Uniform Class Proceedings Act

Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-1 Uniform Law Conference of Canada Uniform Class Proceedings Act 8-2 Table of Contents PART I: DEFINITIONS 1 Definitions PART II: CERTIFICATION 2 Plaintiff s class proceeding 3 Defendant s class proceeding

More information

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT c t CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE ACT PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 2, 2015. It is intended for information

More information

Are claims for breach of the implied warranties in domestic building contracts apportionable claims? An overview of the positions in NSW, VIC and QLD

Are claims for breach of the implied warranties in domestic building contracts apportionable claims? An overview of the positions in NSW, VIC and QLD Are claims for breach of the implied warranties in domestic building contracts apportionable claims? An overview of the positions in NSW, VIC and QLD Authors: Reena Dandan, Jordan Farr, Thomas Byrne &

More information

CHAPTER MINORS AS PARTIES

CHAPTER MINORS AS PARTIES MINORS AS PARTIES 231 Rule 2026 CHAPTER 2020. MINORS AS PARTIES Rule 2026. Definitions. 2027. Guardian to Represent Minor. 2028. Actions By and Against Minors. Averments in Plaintiff s Pleading. 2029.

More information

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1.

SUMMARY OF CONTENTS SC-1. SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 SUMMARY OF CONTENTS VOLUME 1 Chapter 1. Preliminary Matters............................ 1-1 Chapter 2. Parties...................................... 2-1 Chapter 3. Service......................................

More information

. a division of a department of the Executive Government;

. a division of a department of the Executive Government; INFRASTRUCTURE SFMINAR I "THE LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF DEALING WlTH GOVERNMENT AND STATUTORY BODIFS" A. POWER OF GOVERNMENT TO CONTRACT - Identifying the Party When considering the power of Government to

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Haggarty v Wood (No 2) [2015] QSC 244 PARTIES: JOHN PETER JOSEPH HAGGARTY (first plaintiff/first respondent) AND JUSTIN THOMAS HAGGARTY, SCOTT JON HAGGARTY, DARREN

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 8, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 8, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 8, 2011 Session CHANDA KEITH v. REGAS REAL ESTATE COMPANY, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 135010 Dale C. Workman, Judge

More information

3 rd ANNUAL OOCUR CONFERENCE BAHAMAS: 2 4 November 2005 ESTOPPEL IN RELATION TO A CLAIM FOR BACKBILLING FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE

3 rd ANNUAL OOCUR CONFERENCE BAHAMAS: 2 4 November 2005 ESTOPPEL IN RELATION TO A CLAIM FOR BACKBILLING FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 3 rd ANNUAL OOCUR CONFERENCE BAHAMAS: 2 4 November 2005 ESTOPPEL IN RELATION TO A CLAIM FOR BACKBILLING FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE By Justice Prem Persaud, Chairman Guyana Public Utilities Commission, Secretary/treasurer

More information

Contents Introduction to Civil Procedure... 1 Procedural Law... 1 Guiding Principle for Procedure... 1 Adversarial System of Litigation...

Contents Introduction to Civil Procedure... 1 Procedural Law... 1 Guiding Principle for Procedure... 1 Adversarial System of Litigation... Contents Introduction to Civil Procedure... 1 Procedural Law... 1 Guiding Principle for Procedure... 1 Adversarial System of Litigation... 1 Cards on the Table Approach to Litigation... 2 Principle of

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Watson v WorkCover Queensland & Anor [2005] QSC 225 PARTIES: FILE NO: BS2958 of 2005 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ROBERT KEITH WATSON (applicant) v WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND (first

More information

674 TEE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. 23

674 TEE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. 23 674 TEE MODERN LAW REVIEW VOL. 23 subjects which was how the Master of the Rolls summarised the views of Denning J., as he then was, in Robertson v. Minister of Pensions.? The recognition of a distinction

More information

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia THIRD DIVISION ELLINGTON, P. J., ANDREWS and RICKMAN, JJ. NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be physically received in our clerk s office within ten days of the date of decision to be deemed timely

More information

SUPREME COURT OF YUKON

SUPREME COURT OF YUKON SUPREME COURT OF YUKON Citation: Yukon Human Rights Commission v. Yukon Human Rights Board of Adjudication, Property Management Agency and Yukon Government, 2009 YKSC 44 Date: 20090501 Docket No.: 08-AP004

More information

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Kinsella v Gold Coast City Council [2014] QSC 65 PARTIES: FILE NO/S: BS 5010 of 2013 DIVISION: PROCEEDING: ORIGINATING COURT: HELEN BARBARA and PETER LOUIS KINSELLA

More information