Stay updated with breaking news from ஆண்டனி சாஸ்ஸி. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
Trial dates are regarded as 'milestone dates' for civil litigation and are therefore immovable, save for 'exceptional circumstances'. In such circumstances, the courts have a discretion to adjourn a trial. An exercise of such discretion involves balancing the prejudice suffered by the parties, as a result of an adjournment, with the primary aim of securing a just resolution of a dispute in accordance with their substantive rights. In a recent case, the unexpected death of the plaintiff justified an adjournment of the trial. ....
In Daimler AG v Leiduck, the Court of Appeal recently reviewed what appears to have been a novel point regarding which party in civil proceedings has the burden of proving that a witness is competent to give evidence at the time of giving evidence. (1) At first instance, the judge had decided that the burden is on the party that calls the witness (in this case the defendant), as opposed to the party that challenges the competence of the witness. The defendant applied for permission to appeal aspects of the judge s ruling regarding some of the evidence ruled to be inadmissible. In considering and refusing the defendant s application, the Court of Appeal appears to have gone out of its way to confirm that the judge had been correct as a matter of principle and common sense. ....
Mathnasium Center Licensing, LLC v Chang, (1) the Court of Appeal allowed the defendant s appeal against a lower court s finding that he had made a false statement of truth with respect to an admission in a defence filed on behalf of a company. As is normal in such appeals, the Court of Appeal was reluctant to disturb a lower court s primary finding. However, in this case, the Court of Appeal considered that the lower court had been plainly wrong to make an order for committal for contempt of court. The Court of Appeal agreed with the lower court that, in principle, a person who makes a statement of truth in a pleading that verifies a false admission of fact can be committed for contempt of court. However, the admission must be clear and unqualified and this is where the Court of Appeal disagreed with the lower court. In this case, the defendant appears to have made a mistake, possibly as a result of an unfortunate miscommunication with the company s lawyers while under pressu ....
Latest court guidance on COVID-19 measures internationallawoffice.com - get the latest breaking news, showbiz & celebrity photos, sport news & rumours, viral videos and top stories from internationallawoffice.com Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday newspapers.