IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT, NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN
|
|
- Karin Quinn
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV No IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT, NO. 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BETWEEN CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED AND THE COMPTROLLER OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Claimant Defendant Before: Boodoosingh J. Appearances: Ms Dana Seetahal SC leading Mr Kelvin Ramkissoon instructed by Mr Westmin James for the Claimant Mr Christopher Hamel Smith SC leading Mr Martin George and Ms Karlene Seenath instructed by Ms Florence Ramdin for the Defendant Delivered: 8 February 2010 RULING On 10 July 2009 Custom Officer Darren Bhola served the claimant with a document entitled Notice of Seizure of Goods. This concerned 51 WMS Gaming Machines and Page 1 of 9
2 83 PCS Ceromix Monitors. The grounds set out were: Breaches of Section 213(e) and Section 214 of the Customs Act Chap. 78:01: Pending report from CARIRI. On 29 October 2009, the goods not having been released, the claimant brought judicial review proceedings. They claimed: (1) The decision to seize and detain the above named goods was illegal, irrational and void. (2) The failure to consider a CARIRI report dated 13 July 2009 stating that the above items were not capable of accepting or rejecting dollar bills, coins, tokens, tickets or credit notes during inspection was illegal and irrational. (3) The Customs Authority was bound by that report. (4) The decision of Customs to request further CARIRI reports without rational or reasonable cause was illegal, irrational and of no effect. (5) The continued detention of the goods was illegal. The shipment was also said to contain chandeliers and panels. Leave was granted for judicial review proceedings to be brought. At the substantive hearing, preliminary submissions were made that the leave granted should be set aside and the judicial review application should be dismissed. Three grounds were set out. These were: (1) The claimant failed to disclose on the ex parte application that it is a member of the Sunny Group of Companies which is heavily engaged in the gambling and/or casino business. Page 2 of 9
3 (2) The claimant had failed to disclose it had obtained a CARIRI report dated 17 August (3) There were alternative remedies to seek the recovery of the goods and this was not disclosed in the judicial review application and it was said there were no alternative remedies. I did not agree with the submissions of the defendant in support of grounds (1) and (2) above. Regarding the first ground, the Customs Authority, as far as this case is concerned, is required to consider the items being brought in as they are. Customs must decide if the items are prohibited or if there is a false declaration. They can choose to be guided in making this decision by expert reports that may shed light on the operation of the items in question. But they would not have been entitled to consider the business operations of related companies to the Company seeking to bring in the goods. That would, in my view, be an irrelevant consideration. It would also involve significant speculation. The fact that a related company is involved in gaming or casino operations does not mean necessarily that items in a particular shipment would be applied to those businesses. A company could choose not to apply the items to such operations, but have them for entertainment purposes without any gambling or game of chance features in use. Further, they would not ordinarily be entitled to use this as a ground for seizing goods without giving the owner an opportunity to be heard on it. I did not therefore consider this a material non disclosure. In any event, this court is not called on to pronounce on the legality or illegality of gambling operations, but is asked to review a decision of the Customs related to allegedly prohibited items. The second ground alleged a failure to disclose or misrepresentation in relation to a second report of CARIRI. There was no merit in this. While that report was not attached Page 3 of 9
4 to the affidavit filed, its existence was brought out in the hearing and explained as a mistake. I accepted this explanation in good faith from respected Counsel at the Bar and the leave application proceeded with full knowledge of the existence of the report. There was no suggestion that the claimant did not know of this report. The third ground concerns whether there were alternative remedies available to the claimant which were not disclosed. It was suggested that a procedure exists for challenge in the Magistrates Court of a decision of the Customs to seize goods under the Customs Act. Further, it was submitted that this procedure is far better suited than the judicial review court to examine the relevant issues involved and to make a determination. Mr Hamel Smith also advanced that any decision of the Magistrate could be appealed. Thus, this court is not the appropriate forum. Ms Seetahal frankly conceded that there is ordinarily a process in the Magistrates Court under section 220 of the Customs Act. This requires the owners to give notice in writing to the Comptroller of Customs that they claim the goods seized. This notice must be given within one month of the seizure. Where notice is not given as prescribed, the items seized shall be deemed to be condemned without the need for proceedings before the Magistrate. Mr Hamel Smith suggested that the time has passed for this. The failure to give notice to the Comptroller is the claimant s fault and the judicial review court cannot be involved due to their default in following the prescribed process. Ms Seetahal disputed whether it can be said the items were seized within the meaning of section 220 given the terms of the Notice, which was served on the claimant s representative. Page 4 of 9
5 The crux of matter here then is: Was there a seizure within the meaning of the Customs Act? Related to this is: If there was a seizure, was this clearly communicated to the claimant so as to trigger the operation of section 220? I note here that the issue of whether the goods were in fact seized is a mixed issue involving both fact and law. A preliminary objection is not the best forum for deciding factual issues where there is disagreement or contention regarding those facts. I am of the view that it is necessary to be selective in making pronouncements on factual issues where there has not been any objections to evidence and where there has not been crossexamination of the respective deponents. That said, it is undisputed that on or about 10 July 2009 there was an examination of certain items opened by the claimant. These included 51WMS Gaming Machines and 83 PCS Ceromix Monitors. It is not clear to the court what exact discussions took place between the parties (at this stage), but what is undisputed is that a document entitled Notice of Seizure of Goods was served on the claimant by Custom Officer Darren Bhola. This Notice: (1) Set out the items in question; (2) Stated breaches of section 213(e) and section 214 of the Customs Act; (3) Quoted the text of section 220; (4) Noted the date of seizure as 9 July 2009 and the place as Container Examination Section, Point Lisas. The Notice of Seizure thus far appeared to be fully in order. Stated on the Form however, after the breaches of the sections are identified, is this: Breach of Section 213(e) and Section 214 of Customs Act 78:01: Pending report from CARIRI. Page 5 of 9
6 The question that arises is: What was the effect of the words Pending report from CARIRI? There are different suggested interpretations as to the meaning of these words. On the one hand is the suggestion that the goods were seized on 10 July 2009, but that a report from CARIRI may alter that decision. Another possible interpretation is that there was no seizure on 10 July 2009, but that a decision would be deferred until a report from CARIRI was obtained. That report could either alter the decision regarding the seizure or not. In both these interpretations it is clear that a qualification was being made to the seizure notice. It is understandable that Custom Officers will not be experts on all subjects. They are entitled in making their decisions to consider the evidence of experts. This is both reasonable and prudent. When an expert s input is to be given it follows that the actual decision on seizure may have to be postponed. The Customs will have to be given a reasonable time to seek the opinion. In a small jurisdiction, they may also have to wait for the evidence to be forthcoming since the likely number of experts in a given subject area may be small, and these experts may be busy. In my view, it would be proper to consider the decision as being one that had been postponed. Since it would not ordinarily make sense to allow possibly prohibited goods to be released to later find out they are in fact prohibited goods, some arrangements had to be made in this period before a final decision can be properly made. It would be more appropriate to consider such goods as being detained at that time and not seized. This, in my view, is what occurred here construing the Seizure Notice. There was a detention of the goods pending expert input from CARIRI. Page 6 of 9
7 A third suggestion is that there was a seizure and the additional words had no effect. I am unable to agree with this. If Mr Bhola had seized the goods and communicated this orally to the claimant s representative, he ought not to have served such a Notice. This view is consistent with the dictates of good administration. Public authorities cannot be permitted to take advantage of ambiguity arising from their own assertions. Had Mr Bhola intended to seize the goods on 10 July, and having decided to serve the claimant with a Notice of Seizure of Goods, he ought to have said so categorically in that Notice. It would not lead to good administrative practice for the court to sanction the State, in effect, stealing a march on citizens by ambiguous documentary communication. Mr Bhola was fettering his discretion by holding out to the claimant that a decision on the seizure would be made pending a CARIRI report. I reiterate that it is inappropriate for me at this stage to make determinations based on contending assertions in the affidavits of the deponents as to what was stated orally. I therefore consider that I should rely on the terms of the Seizure Notice which are plain to see. Following this Notice the claimant decided in its own interests to commission a report from CARIRI. This was forwarded to the Customs. It appears that the Customs were not satisfied with this report and they commissioned two additional reports from CARIRI. The timing of these reports is critical. Both reports came after 10 August 2009 when, if it is accepted the goods were seized on 10 July 2009, the time would have expired for the claimant to challenge the decision to seize the goods in the Magistrates Court. Up to the time of these reports there is nothing to suggest that the Customs had clearly communicated to the claimant that a decision was made to forego a further report from CARIRI or to reject the first CARIRI report or to await an additional report. There was an onus on the Customs to indicate in an unequivocal way what their decision was. If they had decided to seize the goods they needed to say that they had done so. The most appropriate method would have been to serve a second Seizure Notice since they had served a notice previously. This would have alerted the claimant that they needed to initiate proceedings in the Magistrates Court to preserve their position and prevent Page 7 of 9
8 automatic condemnation. Had that been done the claimant could not have had any complaint if the goods were seized a month after the second notice. Mr Hamel Smith further submitted that based on language used in their application and their supporting affidavits the claimant have accepted that a seizure was made and they therefore cannot now seek to resile from that concession. The language which the claimant used in their leave application, in my opinion, is much less important than what a reasonable construction of the terms of the Notice reveals, keeping good administrative practice in mind. To date, from the information available to me, I cannot say the Customs has communicated to the claimant that the goods have been seized. Where does this leave us now? The Customs has charged the claimant under the Customs Act. Understandably they may wish to detain the goods until the end of those proceedings. They may choose to leave things as they are, therefore, and allow those proceedings to decide the matter. If breaches of the Act have been proved, then forfeiture may follow. If they are not proved then the claimant may be entitled to delivery of the goods. The claimant would have a remedy in civil law if the goods are damaged or destroyed or may have a remedy for loss arising from the detention of the goods. The Customs may also decide at this stage to communicate their seizure of the goods. If this is done the claimant may decide to invoke section 220. This course may however be pointless since the matters are now already before the Magistrates Court. In any event the claimant has a forum before which they may seek the return of the goods depending on the outcome of the cases. While the existence of an alternative remedy may not in all cases preclude a claimant from seeking judicial review, in this case I agree that the judicial review court is not the appropriate forum for the ventilation of the issues regarding the questioned goods. Page 8 of 9
9 For the reasons above, the leave given for the applicants to bring judicial review proceedings is set aside. The judicial review application is consequently dismissed. Given the nature of this decision I will leave it to the parties to try to agree on costs. If they are unable to agree, each side is ordered to make submissions in writing on costs on or before 30 April I thank the attorneys for their clear and very helpful submissions. Ronnie Boodoosingh Judge Page 9 of 9
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT, CHAP 7:08 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CUSTOMS ACT AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2017 02013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT, CHAP 7:08 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CUSTOMS ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF THE DECISION
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2013 03519 BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr. Justice Ronnie
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE MOTOR VESSEL SENATOR BETWEEN TRINIDAD SALT COMPANY LIMTED AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2006-01367 A6 of 2004 ADMIRALTY ACTION IN REM AGAINST THE MOTOR VESSEL SENATOR BETWEEN TRINIDAD SALT COMPANY LIMTED CLAIMANT AND THE
More informationECONO CAR RENTALS LIMITED GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2013-00852 BETWEEN ECONO CAR RENTALS LIMITED Claimant AND CINDY CHARLES GTM INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Co-Defendant NAGICO INSURANCE
More informationCHAPTER 4 THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. Arrangement of Sections.
CHAPTER 4 THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT. Arrangement of Sections. Section 1. Application. 2. Interpretation. PART I PRELIMINARY. PART II ARBITRATION. 3. Form of arbitration agreement. 4. Waiver
More informationA & A MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS AND COMPANY LIMITED PETROLEUM COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-01244 BETWEEN A & A MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS AND COMPANY LIMITED CLAIMANT AND PETROLEUM COMPANY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT BEFORE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN AND. Ms. D. Christopher-Noel; Mr. R. Singh and Ms. G. Jackman instructed by Ms. F.
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV. No.2009-02631 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE (Sub-Registry-Tobago) BETWEEN VERNON AND REID Claimant HER WORSHIP THE LEARNED MAGISTRATE JOAN GILL Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationNational Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules TABLE OF CONTENTS
National Patent Board Non-Binding Arbitration Rules Rules Amended and Effective June 1, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Important Notice...3 Introduction...3 Standard Clause...3 Submission Agreement...3 Administrative
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV No. 2011-00818 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between SURESH PATEL Claimant And THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Defendant Dated 25 th June, 2013 Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationMUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT
MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ACT CHAPTER 11:24 Act 39 of 1997 Amended by 7 of 2001 14 of 2004 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 76.. 1/ L.R.O. 2 Ch. 11:24 Mutual
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2016-03177 IN THE MATTER OF THE PROPERTY COMPRISED IN A MEMORUM OF SECOND MORTGAGE DATED THE 15 TH DAY OF AUGUST 2013 REGISTERED IN VOLUME
More informationMs. S. Chote, SC and Mr. T. Clarke for the Applicant Mr. B. Winter, Senior State Attorney for the Commissioner of Police
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO PORT OF SPAIN MAGISTRATES COURT ST. GEORGE WEST MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT CASES: 07844-07871 0F 2013 BETWEEN WOMAN POLICE CORPORAL NO. 14145 TRICIA SMITH COMPLAINANT AND LINCOLN
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND SUMAIR MOHAN
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 45 of 2008 BETWEEN THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION APPELLANTS AND SUMAIR MOHAN RESPONDENT PANEL: A. Mendonça,
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-03158 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN JULIANA WEBSTER CLAIMANT AND REPUBLIC BANK LIMITED PC KAREN RAMSEY #13191 PC KERN PHILLIPS #16295 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO BETWEEN AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2009 BETWEEN ANTONIO WEBSTER APPELLANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENT Civil Appeal No. 120 of
More informationPART I ARBITRATION - CHAPTER I
INDIAN BARE ACTS THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 No.26 of 1996 [16th August, 1996] An Act to consolidate and amend the law relating to domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SOCA FOR PEACE FOUNDATION AND THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2013-01845 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SOCA FOR PEACE FOUNDATION APPLICANT AND THE REGISTRAR OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE RESPONDENT Before the Honourable
More informationUNIT TRUST CORPORATION AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RONNIE BOODOOSINGH REASONS
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2012-03240 BETWEEN UNIT TRUST CORPORATION CLAIMANT AND RICHARD WOODRUFFE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE RONNIE BOODOOSINGH
More informationTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2009-04042 BETWEEN PAUL WELCH CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R. BOODOOSINGH
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV2018-00517 IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION BY WINSTON SUTTON (THE SUBJECT OF A WARRANT OF ARREST) FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW UNDER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando BETWEEN. KALAWATIE GODEK also referred to as Jenny Godek
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2017-00494 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE San Fernando BETWEEN KALAWATIE GODEK also referred to as Jenny Godek CLAIMANT AND THE CHIEF FIRE OFFICER (HEAD OF THE TRINIDAD
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between ROBERTO CHARLES AND SHASTRI PRABHUDIAL
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2015-02739 Between ROBERTO CHARLES BHAMINI MATABADAL Claimants AND SHASTRI PRABHUDIAL Defendant Before The Honourable Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF THE PARTITION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 27 NO. 14 AND. RAWTI also called RAWTI ROOPNARINE KUMAR ROOPNARINE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Civil Appeal No: 52 of 2012 BETWEEN IN THE MATTER OF THE PARTITION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 27 NO. 14 AND In The matter of All and Singular that certain
More informationRepublic of Trinidad and Tobago
Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Act No. 39 of 1997 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act An Act to make provision with respect to the Scheme relating to Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters within
More informationTHE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ARBITRATION ACT (CHAPTER 10)
THE STATUTES OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE ARBITRATION ACT (CHAPTER 10) (Original Enactment: Act 37 of 2001) REVISED EDITION 2002 (31st July 2002) Prepared and Published by THE LAW REVISION COMMISSION UNDER
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between AINSLEY GREAVES. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2012-02753 Between AINSLEY GREAVES Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2009-04393 BETWEEN TALAT TEDDY HOSEIN CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationSource: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000)
Source: BOOK: International Handbook on Commercial Arbitration, J. Paulsson (ed.), Suppl. 30 (January/2000) The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (No. 26 of 1996), [16th August 1996] India An Act
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 13-8015 HUBERT E. WALKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. TRAILER TRANSIT, INC., Defendant-Respondent.
More informationIN THE MATTER OF CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED. (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, CHAP 81:01
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-01442 IN THE MATTER OF CLICO INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED (In Compulsory Liquidation) AND IN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, CHAP 81:01
More informationv No Wayne Circuit Court U-WIN PROPERTIES, LLC, SUSAN BOGGS, LC No CZ and LINNELL & ASSOCIATES, PLLC,
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ROLONDO CAMPBELL, VALERIE MARTIN, and PAUL CAMPBELL, UNPUBLISHED November 21, 2017 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 333429 Wayne Circuit Court U-WIN
More informationPOLICE CONSTABLE RENNIE LAKHAN NO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO REASONS
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2010-01582 BETWEEN SIEULAL RAMSARAN CLAIMANT AND POLICE CONSTABLE RENNIE LAKHAN NO. 13429 THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
More informationPROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30. v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION OF PROVINCIAL COURT
PROVINCIAL COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Citation: R. v. Reeve, 2018 NSPC 30 Date: 20180831 Docket: 2793700 & 2793703 Registry: Dartmouth Between: Her Majesty the Queen v. Sherri Reeve DECISION RE: JURISDICTION
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL ROY FELIX. And. DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CA No. S 256/2017 Between ROY FELIX And DAVID BROOKS Also called MAVADO Claimant Defendant PANEL: BEREAUX J.A. NARINE J.A. RAJKUMAR J.A. APPEARANCES:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV2016-03157 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO PART 56.3 OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDINGS RULES, 1998
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE C.V. 2011/2027 BETWEEN RUBY THOMPSON-BODDIE LENORE HARRIS APPLICANTS AND THE CABINET OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO RESPONDENTS BEFORE THE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando. VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND. SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership)
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando CV. NO. 2006-01349 BETWEEN VSN INVESTMENTS LIMITED Claimant AND SEASONS LIMITED (In Receivership) Defendant BEFORE
More informationDr. Nael Bunni, Chairman, Dispute Resolution Panel, Engineers Ireland, 22 Clyde Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4. December 2000.
Preamble This Arbitration Procedure has been prepared by Engineers Ireland principally for use with the Engineers Ireland Conditions of Contract for arbitrations conducted under the Arbitration Acts 1954
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN AND
IN THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 44 of 2014 BETWEEN ROLAND JAMES Appellant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent PANEL: Mendonça, J.A.
More informationREPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAN FERNANDO Claim No. CV2015-03939 BETWEEN RAVENDRA KEMAT BRIDGLAL Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before
More informationGaming Control Act CHAPTER 4 OF THE ACTS OF as amended by
Gaming Control Act CHAPTER 4 OF THE ACTS OF 1994-95 as amended by 2003, c. 4, s. 14; 2008, c. 57; 2010, c. 2, ss. 102, 103; 2011, c. 63, ss. 1(b), 4, 5; 2012, c. 23; 2014, c. 34, s. 10 2016 Her Majesty
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO JUDGMENT
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2010-05237 BETWEEN MIGUEL REGIS Claimant AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honorable Mr. Justice
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN. Anand Beharrylal AND. Dhanraj Soodeen. Ricky Ramoutar
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD & TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2011-04453 BETWEEN Anand Beharrylal AND Claimant Dhanraj Soodeen Ricky Ramoutar First Defendant Second Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationArbitration Act B.E. 2545
1 (Translation) Arbitration Act B.E. 2545 BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ, REX., Given on the 23 rd day of April B.E. 2545 (2002) Being the 57 th Year of the Present Reign. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE. And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010-03257 BETWEEN BRIAN MOORE Claimant And PUBLIC SERVICES CREDIT UNION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF And
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No.: CV2008-03639 IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO. 60 OF 2000 And IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY STEVE FERGUSON AND ISHWAR
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between DOREEN ALEXANDER-DURITY. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. 2013-01303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between DOREEN ALEXANDER-DURITY Applicant/Intended Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Respondent/Intended
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between. And. HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00707 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between ALVIN And AHYEW Claimant HER WORSHIP SENIOR MAGISTRATE MRS. INDRA RAMOO-HAYNES Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SANJEEV RAMGARIB AND HER WORSHIP MAGISTRATE REHANNA HOSEIN
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2015 00266 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SANJEEV RAMGARIB Applicant AND HER WORSHIP MAGISTRATE REHANNA HOSEIN Respondent Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SEUKERAN SINGH CLAIMANT AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2008-04470 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN SEUKERAN SINGH CLAIMANT AND COMMISSIONER OF POLICE DEFENDANT BEFORE THE HON. MADAME JUSTICE JOAN CHARLES Appearances: For
More informationGaming Control Act CHAPTER 4 OF THE ACTS OF as amended by
Gaming Control Act CHAPTER 4 OF THE ACTS OF 1994-95 as amended by 2003, c. 4, s. 14; 2008, c. 57; 2010, c. 2, ss. 102, 103; 2011, c. 63; 2012, c. 23; O.I.C. 2014-71; 2014, c. 34, s. 10; 2016, c. 21; 2018,
More informationConsolidated Arbitration Rules
Consolidated Arbitration Rules THE LEADING PROVIDER OF ADR SERVICES 1. Applicability of Rules The parties to a dispute shall be deemed to have made these Consolidated Arbitration Rules a part of their
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and. 2011: September 1. JUDGMENT
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SLUHCV 2007/0698 BETWEEN: [1] GARNAT GEORGE [2] ADOLPHUS SMALL Claimants and CLAUDIUS ETIENNE Defendant Appearances: Mr. Horace Fraser for Claimants Ms. Lydia B.
More informationBETWEEN GARNER AND GARNER LIMITED AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2010 03244 BETWEEN GARNER AND GARNER LIMITED CLAIMANT AND ROOPCHAN CHOOTOO DEFENDANT Before the Honourable Mr Justice Ronnie Boodoosingh
More informationCase 0:10-cv WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 0:10-cv-61985-WPD Document 24 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/31/2011 Page 1 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GARDEN-AIRE VILLAGE SOUTH CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION INC., a Florida
More informationTHE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1968
THE RAILWAY SERVANTS (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) RULES, 1968 In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules, namely:-
More informationARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 42A GUAM INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION NOTE: Chapter 42A was added by by P.L. 27-081:3 (April 30, 2004), and became effective upon enactment. In light of the creation of a new Chapter 42A, the sections
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between FRANKLIN ALI. And AZARD ALI DAILY NEWS LIMITED
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2014 04344 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between FRANKLIN ALI Claimant And AZARD ALI First Defendant DAILY NEWS LIMITED Second Defendant Before the Honourable Mr Justice
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PAUL HACKSHAW. and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT LUCIA CLAIM NO.: SLUHCV2008/0827 BETWEEN: PAUL HACKSHAW Claimant and ST. LUCIA AIR AND SEA PORTS AUTHORITY Defendant APPEARANCES:
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2011/4632 BETWEEN VERNON BARNETT CLAIMANT AND THE PROMOTION ADVISORY BOARD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationPage 1 of 17 Attorney General International Commercial Arbitration Act (R.S.N.B. 2011, c. 176) Act current to March 7, 2012 2011, c.176 International Commercial Arbitration Act Deposited May 13, 2011 Definitions
More informationLegal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, No. 22 of 2014
Legal Supplement Part C to the Trinidad and Tobago Gazette, Vol. 53, No. 152, 4th December, 2014 2002 No. 22 of 2014 Fifth Session Tenth Parliament Republic of Trinidad and Tobago HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017
THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE A.D. 2017 CLAIM NO. 668 OF 2016 MIGUEL ANGEL MESTIZO AND ERNESTO GABOUREL ERNEST GABOUREL CLAIMANT 1 st DEFENDANT 2 nd DEFENDANT 1 st ANCILLARY CLAIMANT 2 nd ANCILLARY CLAIMANT
More informationARBITRATION RULES. Arbitration Rules Archive. 1. Agreement of Parties
ARBITRATION RULES 1. Agreement of Parties The parties shall be deemed to have made these rules a part of their arbitration agreement whenever they have provided for arbitration by ADR Services, Inc. (hereinafter
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2016 00027 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between Scotiabank Trinidad and Tobago Limited Claimant And Carlos Law Diane Law Defendants Before the Honourable Mr Justice
More informationWIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES
APPENDIX 3.17 WIPO WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANISATION ARBITRATION RULES (as from 1 October 2002) I. GENERAL PROVISIONS Abbreviated Expressions Article 1 In these Rules: Arbitration Agreement means
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV2014-04731 BETWEEN KRISENDAYE BALGOBIN RAMPERSAD BALGOBIN Claimants AND PINKEY ALGOO ROOCHAN ALGOO RAJDAI ALGOO MEERA ALGOO First
More informationRule 8400 Rules of Practice and Procedure GENERAL Introduction Definitions General Principles
Rule 8400 Rules of Practice and Procedure GENERAL 8401. Introduction (1) The Rules of Practice and Procedure (the Rules of Procedure ) set out the rules that govern the conduct of IIROC s enforcement proceedings
More informationNumber 29 of 2000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT, 2000 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. Section 1. Interpretation. 2. Trafficking in illegal immigrants.
Number 29 of 2000 ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS (TRAFFICKING) ACT, 2000 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS Section 1. Interpretation. 2. Trafficking in illegal immigrants. 3. Power to detain certain vehicles. 4. Forfeiture
More informationSUPREME 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 informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DONALDSON-HONEYWELL
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV: 2013-04300 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN LAKHPATIYA BARRAN (also called DOWLATIAH BARRAN) CLAIMANT AND BALMATI BARRAN RAJINDRA BARRAN MAHENDRA BARRAN FIRST DEFENDANT
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MARILYN LANE AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2014-03332 BETWEEN MARILYN LANE Claimant AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honourable Mr. Justice
More informationTHE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2017-02046 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUB-REGISTRY, SAN FERNANDO RAPHAEL MOHAMMED AND THE COMMISSIONER OF PRISONS CLAIMANT FIRST DEFENDANT AND THE ATTORNEY
More informationBILL. AN ACT to amend the Integrity in Public Life Act, Chap. 22:01
BILL AN ACT to amend the Integrity in Public Life Act, Chap. 22:01 Preamble WHEREAS it is enacted by section 13(1) of the Constitution that an Act of Parliament to which that section applies may expressly
More informationPART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS
PART 6: RESOLVING ISSUES AND PRESERVING RIGHTS What this Part is about: This Part is designed to resolve issues and questions arising in the course of a Court action. It includes rules describing how applications
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between PAUL CHOTALAL. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. C.V. 2014-00155 Between PAUL CHOTALAL Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendants Before the Honourable
More informationTITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES SUBTITLE A: EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SUBCHAPTER n: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
ISBE 23 ILLINOIS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 475 TITLE 23: EDUCATION AND CULTURAL RESOURCES : EDUCATION CHAPTER I: STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION : DISPUTE RESOLUTION PART 475 CONTESTED CASES AND OTHER FORMAL HEARINGS
More informationJAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures
JAMS International Arbitration Rules & Procedures Effective September 1, 2016 JAMS INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION RULES JAMS International and JAMS provide arbitration and mediation services from Resolution
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between CHRISTOPHER LUCKY AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV 2012-00224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between CHRISTOPHER LUCKY AND Claimant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN PRIMNATH GEELAL AND DHAMRAJIE GEELAL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2015-02943 BETWEEN PRIMNATH GEELAL AND DHAMRAJIE GEELAL Claimants AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before
More informationby UPPC, Entebbe, by Order of the Government. Hire Purchase Act THE HIRE PURCHASE ACT, ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS. PART I PRELIMINARY.
ACTS SUPPLEMENT No. 2 12th June, 2009. ACTS SUPPLEMENT to The Uganda Gazette No. 27 Volume CII dated 12th June, 2009. Printed by UPPC, Entebbe, by Order of the Government. Act 3 Hire Purchase Act THE HIRE
More informationAAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex, Commercial Disputes)
APPENDIX 4 AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules and Mediation Procedures (Including Procedures for Large, Complex, Commercial Disputes) Commercial Mediation Procedures M-1. Agreement of Parties Whenever, by
More informationTHIRD AMENDED TRIBAL TORT CLAIMS ORDINANCE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION BE IT ENACTED BY THE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION AS FOLLOWS:
THIRD AMENDED TRIBAL TORT CLAIMS ORDINANCE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION BE IT ENACTED BY THE SYCUAN BAND OF THE KUMEYAAY NATION AS FOLLOWS: I. TITLE. This Ordinance shall be entitled the Sycuan Band
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY FELIX JAMES FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. 2009-00439 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY FELIX JAMES FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER UNDER PART 56 OF THE CIVIL PROCEEDING RULES (1998)
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CH.7:08 OF THE LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2010-02389 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT CH.7:08 OF THE LAWS OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO AND IN THE MATTER OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS
More informationKERALA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1960
1 KERALA CIVIL SERVICES (CLASSIFICATION, CONTROL & APPEAL) RULES, 1960 In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Kerala hereby makes
More informationARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013)
ARBITRATION RULES OF THE SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE SIAC RULES (5 TH EDITION, 1 APRIL 2013) 1. Scope of Application and Interpretation 1.1 Where parties have agreed to refer their disputes
More informationCase 2:74-cv MJP Document 21 Filed 04/03/2006 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE
Case :-cv-00-mjp Document Filed 0/0/0 Page of 0 SUSAN B. LONG, et al., v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Defendant.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2017-01240 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT NO 60 OF 2000 AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Cv. #2009/1536 BETWEEN JEFFREY JOHN CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO DEFENDANTS BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE DEAN-ARMORER
More informationSEIZURE Effective Date: May 9, 2005
SOUTH COAST BRITISH COLUMBIA TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY POLICE SERVICE SEIZURE Effective Date: May 9, 2005 POLICY 1. Seizure will be undertaken only when clearly authorized by law or with express consent.
More informationSINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC)
GUIDE TO INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION IN SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION CENTRE (SIAC) Written By S. Ravi Shankar Advocate on Record - Supreme Court of India National President of Arbitration Bar of India
More informationSOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY
SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY Southern Glazer s Arbitration Policy July - 2016 SOUTHERN GLAZER S WINE AND SPIRITS, LLC. EMPLOYMENT ARBITRATION POLICY A. STATEMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CA No. 34 of 2013 CV No. 03690 of 2011 PANEL: IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DOC S ENGINEERING WORKS (1992) LTD DOCS ENGINEERING WORKS LTD RAJ GOSINE SHAMDEO GOSINE AND
More informationTHE SUPREME COURT IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 1936 IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 38 AND 39 OF THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1994
THE SUPREME COURT Murray C.J. 153/06 Hardiman J. Macken J. IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 38 OF THE COURTS OF JUSTICE ACT, 1936 and IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 38 AND 39 OF THE Between: CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1994
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2011-02975 IN THE MATTER OF THE PARTITION ORDINANCE CHAPTER 81:02 IN THE MATTER OF ALL SINGULAR THAT CERTAIN PIECE OR PARCEL OF L COMPRISING
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN DARREN BHOLA [CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICER II] And CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED DARREN NURSE CINDY GIBBS
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL Mag. App. No. P 068 of 2015 BETWEEN DARREN BHOLA [CUSTOMS AND EXCISE OFFICER II] And Appellant CANSERVE CARIBBEAN LIMITED DARREN NURSE CINDY GIBBS
More informationJane Sanders, The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre, December Summary of section 201 (before recent amendments)
LEPRA section 201 recent developments Jane Sanders, The Shopfront Youth Legal Centre, December 2014 1 Introduction Section 201 of the Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (LEPRA) requires
More informationBERMUDA STATUTORY INSTRUMENT SR&O 71/1968 MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL RULES 1968
Laws of Bermuda Title 11 Item 36(a) BERMUDA STATUTORY INSTRUMENT SR&O 71/1968 MENTAL HEALTH REVIEW TRIBUNAL RULES 1968 [made under section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1968 and brought into operation on
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT AND AND
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Claim No. CV 2016-01420 BETWEEN RICKY PANDOHEE CLAIMANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FIRST NAMED DEFENDANT AND THE PRESIDENT,
More information