foreign judgment may operate as res judicata except in the six cases specified in the section 13 and subject to the other conditions mentioned in Sec. 11 of C.P.C. The rules laid down in this section are rules of substantive law and not merely of procedure. The fact that the foreign judgment may fail to show that every separate issue‚ such as‚ the status of the contracting parties‚ or the measure of damages‚ was separately framed and decided‚ is irrelevant unless it can be shown that failure brings
Premium Law Common law Court
UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAW COURSEWORK FOR (MARITIME LAW ) AUTHOR - ( FARADILA BINTI ROSLAN; 11605537 ) DATE - (20TH FEBRUARY 2012 ) SEMINAR GROUP - (-) SEMINAR TUTOR - ( DR. ARDESHIR ATAI ) SCHEME - (LLMF1) “Where the action is undefended‚ it used to be the case that any judgment would be limited to the value of the res itself. In the light of the reasoning of the House of Lords in The Indian Grace (No. 2)‚ to the effect that‚ after service of in rem proceedings
Premium Common law Law Latin legal phrases
Under the rule of joinder‚ where a plaintiff has two or more entirely separate claims emanating from separate transactions‚ he can sue on them in one action. CPLR section 4102(c) provides that a party has not waived his right to a trial by jury by joining a legal claim with another claim not triable by jury which arose out of a separate transaction. Thus‚ a plaintiff is entitled to a jury trial on its legal claims for relief when its equitable claims for relief arise out of an entirely separate
Premium Civil procedure Plaintiff Common law
The MV Lilian S 1 1 Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd 5 Court of Appeal‚ at Mombasa Nyarangi‚ Masime & Kwach JJ A November 17‚ 1989 Civil Appeal No 50 of 1989 (Appeal from an order of the High Court at Mombasa‚ Bosire J‚ in Admiralty Cause No 29 of 1988 dated 28th February‚ 1989) Admiralty Law – admirality jurisdiction of the High Court Kenya – circumstances in which the jurisdiction can be invoked – Judicature Act (Cap 8)‚ section 4 – Supreme Court Act‚ 1981 sections
Premium Appeal Court Supreme court
STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE INDIGENOUS NATION OF THREE RIVERS NARROWS O-PE-NIG‚ a single individual; ) ) Plaintiff‚ ) CIVIL NO. 2012-CV-162 KIJ HP ) vs. ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES‚
Premium Civil procedure United States Legal terms
Darlene Jespersen‚ Plaintiff-Appellant‚ v. Harrah’s Operating Company‚ INC.‚ Defendant-Appellee United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit April 14‚ 2006 Facts: Darlene Jespersen was a bartender at Harrah’s Casino in Reno in the sports bar. She was frequently praised by her supervisors and customers for being an outstanding employee. When Jespersen first started her job at Harrah’s the female bartenders were not required to wear makeup but were encouraged to. Jespersen tried to wear
Premium Appeal Civil procedure United States
Constructive Dismissal Moreover‚ the case must be applied to the Director General within sixty day of the dismissal because this is one of the procedures that need to apply. When the This case will be failure when respondent didn’t follow the requirements of the court because the court do not have jurisdiction to hear the case. The decision can be given by the court but the decision is turn into unlawful and can be set aside if the court continues to hear the case. Based on the case Fung Keong
Premium Common law Employment Termination of employment
INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDANT TO: Defendant Truck Driver BY: Plaintiff Plaintiff‚ by and through his attorney‚ requests that the defendant answer the following Interrogatories fully‚ under oath and in accordance with the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP)‚ title V‚ Rule 33. Interrogatory 1- Were you cautious and thorough when you locked he door on the truck‚ making sure your cargo was properly secure and was not going to fall out before leaving your stating point of your route? If your
Premium Jury Civil procedure Criminal law
Doctrines and Principles in Remedial Law Doctrine of non-interference or doctrine of judicial stability Courts of equal and coordinate jurisdiction cannot interfere with each other‘s orders. Thus‚ the RTC has no power to nullify or enjoin the enforcement of a writ of possession issued by another RTC. The principle also bars a court from reviewing or interfering with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. This doctrine applies with
Premium Civil procedure Appeal Jurisdiction
Chance Peterson January 31 2015 ACC 411 W.A. 2 Chapter 5 18. a. What defense should Lauren Yost and Co. use in the suit by Stuart? Contributory negligence appears to be the best defense against Stuart. The president personally verified the procedure of counting inventory on different days at different locations and thus signed off on the method. This could’ve hide the overstatement of inventory from the auditor. Also‚ Yost had no influence over this internal control weakness. b. What defense
Premium Law Tort Tort law