This document discusses the issuance of provisional remedies like writs of preliminary attachment (WPA) in the Philippines. It provides 5 cases that set jurisprudential doctrines on this issue:
1. PCIB v. Alejandro - The court denied the issuance of a WPA because the defendant was actually a resident of the Philippines, not Hong Kong as claimed by the plaintiff bank.
2. Sievert v. CA - A WPA is not properly issued if served without prior or simultaneous service of summons and a copy of the main complaint to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
3. Davao Light v. CA - A WPA can be validly issued if the summons
The document summarizes two court cases involving the administration of estates:
1) Matute vs. Court of Appeals - The probate court removed a co-administrator without allowing him to present evidence, which was a grave abuse of discretion. The court should have followed proper procedure and ruled on the demurrer to evidence first.
2) Baluyut vs. Pano - The probate court improperly appointed a surviving spouse as administratrix without a full hearing on her competence. Being named executor in a will does not automatically grant letters, and those questioning competence must have a chance to be heard. The court ordered a new hearing.
a) Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012;
b) Mareva Injunction by Roger Tan Kor Mee [1989] 2 CLJ 764;
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
INTERIM/ INTERLOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION
INJUNCTION – FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Undertaking as to Damages
anton Piller Order
Erinford Order
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. There are several types of injunctions including mandatory, prohibitory, perpetual, interlocutory, interim, ex parte, quia timet, and Mareva injunctions. A Mareva injunction specifically seeks to freeze a defendant's assets before judgment to ensure assets are not disposed of so that the plaintiff can recover damages if successful. Key requirements for a Mareva injunction are that the plaintiff must make full disclosure of all material facts and have a good arguable case against the defendant.
The document summarizes an appeal case regarding the suspension of an employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Some key points:
- Choudhary was suspended in 2011 for issuing factually incorrect land clearance certificates. His suspension has been repeatedly extended since then.
- The court discusses the right to a speedy trial and how prolonged suspension can be punitive. Suspension should not be for an indefinite period and reasons must be provided for extensions.
- While the government provided reasons for extensions, the court notes the suspension has now lasted over 3 years. The right to speedy trial applies to departmental inquiries as well.
- The court ultimately finds the suspension has lasted an unreason
Ramadhan is seeking to invoke Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 to remedy irregularities in his application against Syawal. Order 1A allows courts to consider justice over technical non-compliance. However, the document analyzes several cases that have found Order 1A cannot be used to override mandatory rules or cure intentional non-compliance. As Ramadhan failed to comply with the mandatory prerequisites in Order 6 Rule 7(2A) for renewing his writ, it is unlikely the court would allow him to invoke Order 1A in this case.
This document discusses the issuance of provisional remedies like writs of preliminary attachment (WPA) in the Philippines. It provides 5 cases that set jurisprudential doctrines on this issue:
1. PCIB v. Alejandro - The court denied the issuance of a WPA because the defendant was actually a resident of the Philippines, not Hong Kong as claimed by the plaintiff bank.
2. Sievert v. CA - A WPA is not properly issued if served without prior or simultaneous service of summons and a copy of the main complaint to acquire jurisdiction over the defendant.
3. Davao Light v. CA - A WPA can be validly issued if the summons
The document summarizes two court cases involving the administration of estates:
1) Matute vs. Court of Appeals - The probate court removed a co-administrator without allowing him to present evidence, which was a grave abuse of discretion. The court should have followed proper procedure and ruled on the demurrer to evidence first.
2) Baluyut vs. Pano - The probate court improperly appointed a surviving spouse as administratrix without a full hearing on her competence. Being named executor in a will does not automatically grant letters, and those questioning competence must have a chance to be heard. The court ordered a new hearing.
a) Order 29 of the Rules of Court 2012;
b) Mareva Injunction by Roger Tan Kor Mee [1989] 2 CLJ 764;
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT
MANDATORY INJUNCTION
INTERIM/ INTERLOCUTORY MANDATORY INJUNCTION
INJUNCTION – FINAL AND INTERLOCUTORY
INTERLOCUTORY INJUNCTION
Undertaking as to Damages
anton Piller Order
Erinford Order
An injunction is an equitable remedy in the form of a court order that requires a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. There are several types of injunctions including mandatory, prohibitory, perpetual, interlocutory, interim, ex parte, quia timet, and Mareva injunctions. A Mareva injunction specifically seeks to freeze a defendant's assets before judgment to ensure assets are not disposed of so that the plaintiff can recover damages if successful. Key requirements for a Mareva injunction are that the plaintiff must make full disclosure of all material facts and have a good arguable case against the defendant.
The document summarizes an appeal case regarding the suspension of an employee, Ajay Kumar Choudhary. Some key points:
- Choudhary was suspended in 2011 for issuing factually incorrect land clearance certificates. His suspension has been repeatedly extended since then.
- The court discusses the right to a speedy trial and how prolonged suspension can be punitive. Suspension should not be for an indefinite period and reasons must be provided for extensions.
- While the government provided reasons for extensions, the court notes the suspension has now lasted over 3 years. The right to speedy trial applies to departmental inquiries as well.
- The court ultimately finds the suspension has lasted an unreason
Ramadhan is seeking to invoke Order 1A of the Rules of Court 2012 to remedy irregularities in his application against Syawal. Order 1A allows courts to consider justice over technical non-compliance. However, the document analyzes several cases that have found Order 1A cannot be used to override mandatory rules or cure intentional non-compliance. As Ramadhan failed to comply with the mandatory prerequisites in Order 6 Rule 7(2A) for renewing his writ, it is unlikely the court would allow him to invoke Order 1A in this case.
This document defines and classifies different types of injunctions under Malaysian law. It begins by defining injunctions as court orders directing a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. Injunctions are then classified as mandatory (ordering a positive act) or prohibitory (restraining an act). Other classifications include perpetual, interlocutory, interim, ex parte, and quia timet injunctions. The document also discusses mandatory injunctions, prohibitory injunctions, and perpetual injunctions in more detail. It outlines relevant sections of Malaysian law governing injunctions and references several court cases related to injunctions and the jurisdiction of courts to grant injunctions against government bodies.
Code of civil procedure 1908 pleading plaint written statementDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is pleading, rules of pleading. Plaint, its contents, when it can be amended. Written Statement, its contents, set off and counter claim.
Third party proceeding & summary judgementASMAH CHE WAN
Third party proceedings allow a defendant in a lawsuit to add additional parties that may be wholly or partly liable for the claim. A defendant can initiate third party proceedings if they claim contribution, indemnity, or require determination of an issue regarding the subject matter of the claim. A third party served with notice will be bound by the judgment if they do not enter an appearance or defend the claim.
Summary judgment allows a plaintiff to obtain a judgment without a full trial if the defendant's defense has no merit or raises no triable issues. To obtain summary judgment, the plaintiff must show the defendant has entered an appearance, been served with the statement of claim, and submit an affidavit verifying the claim and stating there is no defense
How to file a small claims case in san diegoGreg in SD
This document provides instructions and forms for filing a small claims case in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. It includes an information sheet that explains what small claims court is, who can file a claim, where to file, how to serve the defendant, and what happens at trial. The packet contains forms for filing a Plaintiff's Claim and serving the defendant, as well as additional guidance for small claims procedures.
Proposed rules on hearing & adjudicating disputesHarve Abella
The proposed rules seek to streamline civil procedures in Philippine lower courts to address case backlogs and delays. Specifically:
1) Cases will have only two mandatory hearings - a preliminary conference to identify issues and ensure submission of evidence, and an adjudication hearing where witnesses are examined and a decision is rendered within 15 days.
2) Motions that could delay hearings on the merits are prohibited, such as motions to dismiss or for reconsideration.
3) Pleadings are streamlined, requiring only a verified complaint stating the facts of the case and any violations. Answers must specifically deny allegations or state affirmative defenses.
Here are the key points in response to your questions:
- Ho Kwan Seng established that the rule of natural justice requiring a person not be condemned unheard applies to every administrative action that adversely affects an individual, regardless of how the power is labeled. This extended natural justice protections beyond just "judicial" or "quasi-judicial" powers.
- Rohana Ariffin was significant as it was the first case to explicitly illustrate the application of procedural fairness in Malaysia. It established that procedural fairness requires the duty to give reasons for decisions that adversely impact individuals. It extended the obligations of decision-makers under natural justice/procedural fairness beyond just the right to be heard.
In summary, Ho
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM on civil & criminal exam notesFAROUQ
This document discusses preliminary matters in civil procedure regarding parties in an action. It covers requirements for parties such as being sui juris and compos mentis. It also discusses types of parties like individuals, firms, companies, deceased estates, and representatives. The document then discusses cause of action, locus standi, limitation periods, and commencing an action through a writ. It outlines the process for issuing, serving, renewing and substituting service of a writ, as well as timelines for appearance. The key information provided is on the requirements for valid parties in a civil action and the procedures for commencing a case through issuance and service of a writ.
The appellant, a defense lawyer for Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, filed a motion to disqualify two prosecutors based on supporting documents. The High Court judge held the motion was baseless and proposed holding the appellant in contempt of court. In a summary hearing, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. The Federal Court allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) the appellant was justified in filing the motion, so there was no abuse of court process; (2) the contempt charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the appellant should have been granted an adjournment to fully prepare his defense, as denying this deprived him of a fair hearing.
Small claims manual Indiana Superior Ct,pammydixon
This document provides information about small claims court procedures in Indiana. It defines key terms, outlines filing procedures, statutes of limitations, parties that can be sued, locations for filing, representation, discovery processes, trials, judgments and collections. The document is intended to help individuals understand how to prepare and present a case in small claims court without an attorney.
Federal Judge's order of sanctions against Wal-Mart for its failure to preserve videotape in retaliation and discrimination lawsuit in Atlanta, Georgia.
New York’s Appellate Division Affirms Trial Court’s Ruling that Failure to Co...wolffsamson
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the failure to comply with the conditions precedent in a performance bond precludes recovery by the obligee, even if defective work is discovered after completion. Specifically, the court agreed that the owner failed to comply with notice and other requirements in the AIA A312 bond after discovering water intrusion over a year after construction was finished. Strict compliance with bond conditions is required regardless of whether work remains unfinished.
1. Atty. Bagay was accused of negligence for allowing his secretary to notarize 18 documents while he was out of the country attending a workshop in Mexico. The IBP found him guilty of negligence and revoked his notarial commission for two years.
2. Complainant Rose Bansig filed a complaint against Atty. Celera for bigamy, as he married Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba in 1998 while still legally married to Gracemarie R. Bunagan in 1997. Certified copies of marriage certificates were submitted as evidence.
3. The Supreme Court found Atty. Celera guilty of grossly immoral conduct and ordered his disbarment. They also found his repeated
The court denies the appellant's motion for rehearing or certification to the Supreme Court. The motion was improper and violated numerous rules. It failed to identify any facts overlooked or explain how the court's decision conflicted with precedents. The motion contained unsupported factual assertions and was an emotional tirade. The court directs the appellant's counsel to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the frivolous motion and violations of conduct rules.
The document discusses the legal doctrine of res judicata. It begins by defining res judicata as "the thing has been judged" or "a dispute decided." There are three main principles underlying res judicata: no one should be vexed twice for the same cause, it is in the interest of the state for litigation to end, and a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. Res judicata applies broadly to civil suits, criminal proceedings, and other legal matters. For res judicata to apply, the matter must be directly at issue in both cases, between the same parties under the same title, and decided by a competent court. A matter can be actually or constructively at issue. Res judicata differs from estoppel
This document is a decision from an administrative law judge regarding a whistleblower claim filed by Crisell Seguin against Northrop Grumman Corporation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The judge finds that Seguin engaged in protected activity by refusing to sign a conflicts of interest form and making allegations that a training module had incorrectly reported her status. However, Northrop Grumman claims it terminated Seguin as part of a reduction in force due to declining business. The key issues are whether Seguin's actions were protected activities and whether they contributed to her termination or if the termination was solely due to a reduction in force for business reasons.
1. The document is a brief filed by the author (Matt Taylor) representing a respondent in a contempt of court case for nonpayment of child support. The main issue was the amount of interest the client owed.
2. The brief objects to the petitioner's motion for an extension of time to serve the respondent with their claim for attorney fees. It argues that ORCP 12 B and 15 D do not allow the court to extend deadlines or excuse failures to comply with service requirements.
3. The brief cites several cases that have established that the process in ORCP 68 C for claiming attorney fees is a substantial right, and that failures to comply with service deadlines cannot be excused or overlooked. It argues
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition for review of a decision by the Court of Appeals. [1] Two employees, Madeline Montecillo and Liza Trinidad, filed complaints against their employer Niña Jewelry Manufacturing for illegal dismissal after the company required cash deposits or salary deductions as a condition of continued employment. [2] The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, finding the employees abandoned their work, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the deposit/deduction requirement amounted to constructive dismissal. [3] Niña Jewelry petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts and ordering reinstatement and backpay without factual
This document defines and classifies different types of injunctions under Malaysian law. It begins by defining injunctions as court orders directing a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. Injunctions are then classified as mandatory (ordering a positive act) or prohibitory (restraining an act). Other classifications include perpetual, interlocutory, interim, ex parte, and quia timet injunctions. The document also discusses mandatory injunctions, prohibitory injunctions, and perpetual injunctions in more detail. It outlines relevant sections of Malaysian law governing injunctions and references several court cases related to injunctions and the jurisdiction of courts to grant injunctions against government bodies.
Code of civil procedure 1908 pleading plaint written statementDr. Vikas Khakare
This explains what is pleading, rules of pleading. Plaint, its contents, when it can be amended. Written Statement, its contents, set off and counter claim.
Third party proceeding & summary judgementASMAH CHE WAN
Third party proceedings allow a defendant in a lawsuit to add additional parties that may be wholly or partly liable for the claim. A defendant can initiate third party proceedings if they claim contribution, indemnity, or require determination of an issue regarding the subject matter of the claim. A third party served with notice will be bound by the judgment if they do not enter an appearance or defend the claim.
Summary judgment allows a plaintiff to obtain a judgment without a full trial if the defendant's defense has no merit or raises no triable issues. To obtain summary judgment, the plaintiff must show the defendant has entered an appearance, been served with the statement of claim, and submit an affidavit verifying the claim and stating there is no defense
How to file a small claims case in san diegoGreg in SD
This document provides instructions and forms for filing a small claims case in Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. It includes an information sheet that explains what small claims court is, who can file a claim, where to file, how to serve the defendant, and what happens at trial. The packet contains forms for filing a Plaintiff's Claim and serving the defendant, as well as additional guidance for small claims procedures.
Proposed rules on hearing & adjudicating disputesHarve Abella
The proposed rules seek to streamline civil procedures in Philippine lower courts to address case backlogs and delays. Specifically:
1) Cases will have only two mandatory hearings - a preliminary conference to identify issues and ensure submission of evidence, and an adjudication hearing where witnesses are examined and a decision is rendered within 15 days.
2) Motions that could delay hearings on the merits are prohibited, such as motions to dismiss or for reconsideration.
3) Pleadings are streamlined, requiring only a verified complaint stating the facts of the case and any violations. Answers must specifically deny allegations or state affirmative defenses.
Here are the key points in response to your questions:
- Ho Kwan Seng established that the rule of natural justice requiring a person not be condemned unheard applies to every administrative action that adversely affects an individual, regardless of how the power is labeled. This extended natural justice protections beyond just "judicial" or "quasi-judicial" powers.
- Rohana Ariffin was significant as it was the first case to explicitly illustrate the application of procedural fairness in Malaysia. It established that procedural fairness requires the duty to give reasons for decisions that adversely impact individuals. It extended the obligations of decision-makers under natural justice/procedural fairness beyond just the right to be heard.
In summary, Ho
MALAYSIAN LEGAL SYSTEM on civil & criminal exam notesFAROUQ
This document discusses preliminary matters in civil procedure regarding parties in an action. It covers requirements for parties such as being sui juris and compos mentis. It also discusses types of parties like individuals, firms, companies, deceased estates, and representatives. The document then discusses cause of action, locus standi, limitation periods, and commencing an action through a writ. It outlines the process for issuing, serving, renewing and substituting service of a writ, as well as timelines for appearance. The key information provided is on the requirements for valid parties in a civil action and the procedures for commencing a case through issuance and service of a writ.
The appellant, a defense lawyer for Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim, filed a motion to disqualify two prosecutors based on supporting documents. The High Court judge held the motion was baseless and proposed holding the appellant in contempt of court. In a summary hearing, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced to 3 months imprisonment. The Federal Court allowed the appeal, finding that: (1) the appellant was justified in filing the motion, so there was no abuse of court process; (2) the contempt charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt; and (3) the appellant should have been granted an adjournment to fully prepare his defense, as denying this deprived him of a fair hearing.
Small claims manual Indiana Superior Ct,pammydixon
This document provides information about small claims court procedures in Indiana. It defines key terms, outlines filing procedures, statutes of limitations, parties that can be sued, locations for filing, representation, discovery processes, trials, judgments and collections. The document is intended to help individuals understand how to prepare and present a case in small claims court without an attorney.
Federal Judge's order of sanctions against Wal-Mart for its failure to preserve videotape in retaliation and discrimination lawsuit in Atlanta, Georgia.
New York’s Appellate Division Affirms Trial Court’s Ruling that Failure to Co...wolffsamson
The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling that the failure to comply with the conditions precedent in a performance bond precludes recovery by the obligee, even if defective work is discovered after completion. Specifically, the court agreed that the owner failed to comply with notice and other requirements in the AIA A312 bond after discovering water intrusion over a year after construction was finished. Strict compliance with bond conditions is required regardless of whether work remains unfinished.
1. Atty. Bagay was accused of negligence for allowing his secretary to notarize 18 documents while he was out of the country attending a workshop in Mexico. The IBP found him guilty of negligence and revoked his notarial commission for two years.
2. Complainant Rose Bansig filed a complaint against Atty. Celera for bigamy, as he married Ma. Cielo Paz Torres Alba in 1998 while still legally married to Gracemarie R. Bunagan in 1997. Certified copies of marriage certificates were submitted as evidence.
3. The Supreme Court found Atty. Celera guilty of grossly immoral conduct and ordered his disbarment. They also found his repeated
The court denies the appellant's motion for rehearing or certification to the Supreme Court. The motion was improper and violated numerous rules. It failed to identify any facts overlooked or explain how the court's decision conflicted with precedents. The motion contained unsupported factual assertions and was an emotional tirade. The court directs the appellant's counsel to appear and show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for the frivolous motion and violations of conduct rules.
The document discusses the legal doctrine of res judicata. It begins by defining res judicata as "the thing has been judged" or "a dispute decided." There are three main principles underlying res judicata: no one should be vexed twice for the same cause, it is in the interest of the state for litigation to end, and a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. Res judicata applies broadly to civil suits, criminal proceedings, and other legal matters. For res judicata to apply, the matter must be directly at issue in both cases, between the same parties under the same title, and decided by a competent court. A matter can be actually or constructively at issue. Res judicata differs from estoppel
This document is a decision from an administrative law judge regarding a whistleblower claim filed by Crisell Seguin against Northrop Grumman Corporation under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The judge finds that Seguin engaged in protected activity by refusing to sign a conflicts of interest form and making allegations that a training module had incorrectly reported her status. However, Northrop Grumman claims it terminated Seguin as part of a reduction in force due to declining business. The key issues are whether Seguin's actions were protected activities and whether they contributed to her termination or if the termination was solely due to a reduction in force for business reasons.
1. The document is a brief filed by the author (Matt Taylor) representing a respondent in a contempt of court case for nonpayment of child support. The main issue was the amount of interest the client owed.
2. The brief objects to the petitioner's motion for an extension of time to serve the respondent with their claim for attorney fees. It argues that ORCP 12 B and 15 D do not allow the court to extend deadlines or excuse failures to comply with service requirements.
3. The brief cites several cases that have established that the process in ORCP 68 C for claiming attorney fees is a substantial right, and that failures to comply with service deadlines cannot be excused or overlooked. It argues
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a petition for review of a decision by the Court of Appeals. [1] Two employees, Madeline Montecillo and Liza Trinidad, filed complaints against their employer Niña Jewelry Manufacturing for illegal dismissal after the company required cash deposits or salary deductions as a condition of continued employment. [2] The labor arbiter and NLRC dismissed the complaints, finding the employees abandoned their work, but the Court of Appeals reversed, ruling the deposit/deduction requirement amounted to constructive dismissal. [3] Niña Jewelry petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts and ordering reinstatement and backpay without factual
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for review of an arbitration decision in favor of the respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that (1) while arbitration decisions are subject to judicial review, the petitioner failed to avail the proper remedies and incorrectly filed in the RTC; (2) the RTC did not have jurisdiction over the review as the PCHC Rules purporting to grant such jurisdiction could not override the law; and (3) the proper remedies were a motion to vacate with the RTC, a petition for review with the Court of Appeals, or a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals. The arbitration proceedings are governed by the Arbitration Law and Rules of Court.
The document discusses two motions in the case of Stephen M. Gaggero v. Knapp, Petersen and Clarke, et al.
1) The court partially granted the plaintiff's motion to quash the third deposition notice but ordered that the plaintiff submit to a final deposition of no more than 10 hours on a mutually agreeable date.
2) The court denied the plaintiff's motion to quash the subpoena for production of documents from the plaintiff's previous attorney. The court found that the plaintiff waived privilege by suing both the defendant and previous attorney and putting the attorney's conduct at issue. The documents were ordered to be produced.
The Regional Trial Court dismissed the petitioner's petition for review of an arbitration decision in favor of the respondent. The petitioner argued the RTC had jurisdiction based on the Philippine Clearing House Corporation Rules. However, the Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, finding the RTC did not have jurisdiction and the petitioner should have filed for review with the Court of Appeals or petitioned to vacate the arbitral award with the RTC instead. The Court emphasized that while alternative dispute resolution is encouraged, arbitration is primarily governed by the Arbitration Law and Rules of Court, not private rules of an organization like the PCHC.
The document discusses a revision application aimed at revising an order of the Provincial High Court regarding a dispute over the use of a pathway between three siblings. The High Court refused to entertain the revision application, stating there were no exceptional grounds. The petitioner argues this was contrary to law and facts of the case. The document analyzes relevant case law and acts governing disputes over land rights to determine what must be proven to establish entitlement to a disputed right in the Primary Court under this act, concluding there are two ways to prove entitlement: 1) by establishing acquisition of the right as in a civil case, or 2) by proving enjoyment of the right at the time the dispute arose, which requires less stringent proof than a civil case.
The document discusses a revision application aimed at revising an order of the Provincial High Court regarding a dispute over the use of a pathway between three siblings. The High Court had refused to entertain the revision application, stating there were no exceptional circumstances. The petitioner argued there were exceptional circumstances warranting revision. The Court of Appeal analyzed relevant case law and principles regarding revisionary jurisdiction. It determined that the petitioner failed to establish exceptional circumstances to warrant revision by the Court of Appeal. The document also discusses the standard of proof required in determining entitlement to rights under Section 69 of the Primary Court Procedure Act in disputes brought under Chapter VII.
The document discusses the writ as a mode of originating process in court. It provides details on:
- The requirements for a writ to be deemed issued, including being numbered, signed, dated and sealed.
- The importance of the date of issue, which determines limitation periods and the lifespan of the writ.
- The options if a plaintiff's writ expires, such as issuing a new writ or applying to renew the writ.
- The rules regarding serving a writ on individuals and companies, including the various methods and exceptions.
The Employment Judge found that the solicitors (1) failed to advise the Claimant timeously that there was no prospect of settlement and (2) failed to implement the Claimant's instructions to withdraw the claim until just before the hearing. Based on this, the Judge ordered the solicitors to pay the employer's wasted costs from the date the Claimant would have withdrawn if properly advised. The Judge refused to allow the solicitors to produce their file for the first time at the hearing to show the Claimant had been advised. The appeal was dismissed, with the Judge finding the Employment Judge was entitled to refuse the late file production and did not misdirect himself on the applicable principles.
The document is a reply to a preliminary objection on points of law regarding a motion to set aside the execution of a judgment. It argues that:
1) The Judgment (Enforcement) Rules allow claims to be made to the bailiff or sheriff holding property, and the motion serves this purpose by seeking to set aside the sheriff's actions.
2) Case law establishes that a motion is a proper way to request a court ruling, and there is no specified procedure for claimants to follow to notify the sheriff.
3) Strictly following procedural rules could defeat justice, so the interest of properly investigating claims on their merits outweighs objections based on technicalities.
4) The rules are aids
This document summarizes a Supreme Court decision regarding a dispute over local business taxes assessed by the City of Manila against various companies. The key points are:
1. Private respondents filed a case in regional trial court challenging the legality of certain local business tax provisions. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction preventing collection.
2. Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals challenging the injunction, but the CA dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
3. The Supreme Court treated the case as a petition for review. It found that while the CTA has appellate jurisdiction over local tax cases, its jurisdiction over petitions for certiorari against interlocutory RTC orders was not expressly granted. However
This document summarizes a Supreme Court case regarding a dispute over the construction and operation of a cement plant. The petitioners filed a case in trial court arguing the cement plant would cause pollution and be a nuisance. The trial court issued an injunction prohibiting construction. However, the Court of Appeals overturned this, finding the trial court did not have jurisdiction and the petitioners did not exhaust their administrative remedies with the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) first. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals' decision, reiterating the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies requires resolving issues within administrative bodies first before elevating them to courts.
Quick Costs Qwocs, disapplication, fundamental dishonesty, set off and multip...QuickCostsCostsCompa
This document provides an overview of key issues relating to Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) in personal injury claims. It discusses exceptions to QOCS protection including pre-action disclosure applications, fundamental dishonesty, multiple defendants, and discontinuance. It also addresses set off of costs orders and exemptions where a claim has no reasonable grounds or is an abuse of process. The presentation provides practical tips for claimants' lawyers such as providing clients with warnings about costs risks and ensuring procedural compliance to avoid costs liability under QOCS exceptions.
This document is a motion for stay of judgment pending appeal filed by defendant Eurasian Auto Body, Inc. It requests that the court stay execution of the judgment for possession entered against Eurasian on April 2, 2010 while Eurasian appeals the judgment. The motion argues that Eurasian will suffer extreme hardship if forced to vacate the premises pending appeal as it would incur over $200,000 in moving costs. It also argues that the plaintiff will not be harmed by a stay as long as Eurasian pays rent during the stay period. The motion includes supporting declarations from Eurasian's attorney and principal.
The document discusses the general principles and types of injunctions in equity law. It begins by defining an injunction as a court order that restrains or requires a person to perform a specified act. There are several types of injunctions discussed, including: [1] perpetual/final injunctions that restrain future actions; [2] mandatory injunctions that direct positive acts; and [3] prohibitory injunctions that prohibit certain acts. The document also examines the tests for granting interim/interlocutory injunctions, such as the American Cyanamid test of balancing convenience and assessing whether a serious issue needs trial. Defences to injunctions like delay, acquiescence, and hardship on the defendant are also summarized.
Critical study of dishonour of cheques under negotiable instruments act,1881merenjithr
The document discusses key provisions and amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 regarding dishonour of cheques, including definitions of offenses, requirements for prosecution, and important case law interpretations from the Supreme Court of India that have clarified ambiguities in the Act. It examines issues such as jurisdiction, successive cheque presentations, legally enforceable debts, notice requirements, and the liability of company directors. The overall objective of the Act and amendments is to encourage the use of cheques and enhance their credibility by penalizing dishonored cheques.
Critical study of dishonour of cheques under negotiable instruments act,1881merenjithr
The document discusses key provisions and amendments to the Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881 relating to dishonour of cheques, including definitions of offenses, requirements for initiating prosecution, and important judgements from the Supreme Court of India that have clarified ambiguities in the law. It examines topics such as post-dated cheques, jurisdiction, successive cheque presentations, legally enforceable debts, notice requirements, and the liability of company directors. The conclusion notes that while the law aims for expedited trials, cases in lower courts often move slowly.
5. - Appellant was suspended as MD/CE of Respondent and his
appointment was revoked whilst on suspension.
- He challenged the termination on the ground that he (a
director) was not given notice of the BOD’s meeting which
did the revocation in line with Section 266(1) of CAMA.
- Appellant prayed the court that lack of notice invalidates the
meeting and termination.
- FHC dismissed the action. CA dismissed his appeal and suo
motu raised the issue of the dichotomy between “Executive”
and “Non-Executive” Director. SC upheld his appeal and
ordered his reinstatement.
6. ISSUES DECIDED BY SC
. Whether the CA was right in not considering the reply
brief in its judgment.
. Whether the CA was right in not pronouncing on the
findings of fact of the trial court that the Appellant was
appointed under the common law.
. Whether the CA was right to speculate on an issue not
before the court for determination.
. Whether the CA was right in holding that although the
Appellant was appointed pursuant to Article 105, he is
not a director within the contemplation of CAMA and
that the office of Executive Director is unknown to
CAMA.
7. Preliminary objection to Respondent to Appellant’s issue 1 as
the judgment of CA did not turn on whether the reply was
properly filed.
ON ISSUE 1
Appellant:
Failure to consider reply brief = denial of fair hearing.
issues not raised should not be raised by court.
ON ISSUES 2,3 & 4.
Respondent :
suspension deprived appellant of right of notice
8. SC
Suspension is not removal as a director
Absence of notice invalidates the removal
The CA erred in raising the issue of
“executive” and “non executive director”.
Appellant is deemed to still be the MD/CE of
the Respondent.
9. Well reasoned judgment
It will prevent companies from circumventing
the mandatory provisions of CAMA on
requirement of notice vis-à-vis removal of
Directors.
11. Appellant bought a piece of land from
Respondent.
Appellant paid N345, 700 for connection of
the property to water and electricity.
Appellant later sued Respondent for account
and refund of excess.
Trial court struck out matter at PTC for want
of issue to be decided by trial court.
CA upheld the judgment
12. Whether TC can strike out the matter
during PTC without hearing the parties
when there are outstanding issues.
(Denial of fair hearing).
Whether TC was right to refuse
Appellant’s leave to amend Statement
of Claim in the light of the enactment of
an Act.
13. ON ISSUES 1 & 2
. Appellant : non determination of issue of account was a denial of fair
hearing.
. Respondent: Having filed a detailed Statement of Account, there
was nothing from the Appellant to compare with it.
ON ISSUE 3
. Appellant: need to amend pleadings bcs PSRA makes it illegal
for any person or org. to be involved in the G, D & T of
electricity exceeding 1MV and 100 KW, respectively without a
license from ERC
. Respondent: amendment not permitted; it would allow
appellant to create a new cause of action and therefore
prejudice the Respondent.
14. On issues 1 & 2
. The PTC judge was right to have struck out
the matter since there were no issues left
for trial. No infringement of fair hearing.
(fair hearing is not hearing at all costs).
On issue 3
. The PTC judge was right to refuse the
amendment; it is retroactive and
overreaching.
15. On issue 1 & 2
. The PTC judge was wrong to have struck
out the matter, suo motu, without calling
on parties to address it on the propriety of
doing so at that stage.
On issue 2
. The court held rightly in refusing the
application for amendment for the reasons
given by the court.
17. The Appellants sued for declaration of title and
trespass to land. Para 7 of the SOC states “the
act of trespass began when suit No. C/88/76 was
pending”.
The Defendant/Appellant prayed that the
matter be struck out for being statute –barred.
The trial court struck out the matter holding that
the course of action arose over 30 years.
CA held that the TC acted prematurely and
ordered a retrial.
18. Sole Issue:
. Whether the trial court
was right to hold that the
action was statute
barred.
19. Appellants:
that although the SOC did not state when the course of
action arose, they became aware of the acts of trespass
when their tenants were being harassed by Respondents and
then had to sue. That the ct ought to have called evidence to
determine when the cause of action arose.
Respondent:
that the action was caught by statute of limitation
The pleadings disclose that the cause of action arose when
suit No. C/88/76 was pending.
20. CA:
The word ‘Pending’ as used in paragraph 7 is a
continuous verb and therefore makes indeterminate the
actual time when the cause of action arose.
Plaintiffs/Appellants had some explanations to make as
to when the cause of action arose
it is the duty of the trial court where the date when the
cause of action arose is disputed not to determine it as a
question of fact until evidence has been called on the
issue.
the trial judge ought to have called evidence to
determine when the cause of action arose.
21. I agree with the CA that the SOC is
not clear as to when the cause of
action arose. It was therefore not
right for the trial judge to strike out
the matter in limine without calling
evidence to determine the actual time
the cause of action arose.