Search for: "Any and All Unknown Claimants of Interest"
Results 301 - 320
of 343
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
7 Nov 2010, 9:55 pm
In my judgment the proposed order will be effective to achieve justice, and will give all necessary protection the private lives of the Claimant and any others concerned, if it identifies the Claimant, but gives information about the subject matter only in the Confidential Schedule. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 5:53 am
In my judgment the proposed order will be effective to achieve justice, and will give all necessary protection the private lives of the Claimant and any others concerned, if it identifies the Claimant, but gives information about the subject matter only in the Confidential Schedule. [read post]
29 Oct 2010, 3:57 am
The difference between the two causes of action can be critical, as John Terry found to his cost: Terry (formerly LNS) v Persons Unknown [2010] EMLR 16 (Tugendhat J). [read post]
26 Oct 2010, 5:21 pm
As the court made clear in Terry v Person Unknown ([2010] EWHC 119 (QB)), any application for such derogation should be supported by evidence in an application. [read post]
21 Oct 2010, 3:08 pm
In an interesting obiter observation, the Judge considered a way round this difficulty. [read post]
14 Oct 2010, 5:52 pm
Persons Unknown [2010] EMLR 16. [read post]
27 Sep 2010, 8:05 pm
This was a story of high public interest. [read post]
23 Sep 2010, 9:21 am
All I can say for sure is that SIPC’s answers say it disallowed 8,489 claims of “claimants who had no account at Madoff,” and an additional 2,094 claims (or a total of 10,583) are tentatively in this category, but conceivably could be recategorized. [read post]
22 Sep 2010, 6:26 pm
By paragraph 6 the (unknown) respondent was restrained from publishing or communicating (1) the existence of the proceedings or the claimants’s interest in the proceedings and (2) all or any part of the confidential information ( as set out in the schedule ). [read post]
19 Aug 2010, 12:23 am
The AmeriKat can see the attractiveness of these arguments and complaints as being in the interests of the claimant but there is something very unattractive about this trend. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 2:08 pm
Section 22(b)(1), by contrast, is far broader, preempting any “civil action for damages” – including claims for negligence, breach of implied warranty, and all other causes of action regarding vaccines.Wyeth br. at 41. [read post]
29 Jul 2010, 9:48 pm
All rights reserved.House Bill 10-1394, codified at CRS §§ 10-4-110.4 and 13-20-808, significantly affects insurance coverage for construction defect claims. [read post]
19 Jul 2010, 1:38 am
For rather unknown persons, it does not introduce any additional burden, because their reputation will usually only be affected in their home country anyway. [read post]
14 Jul 2010, 10:32 am
In the recent case of Terry (previously ‘LNS’) v Persons Unknown ([2010] EWHC 119 (QB)) the court addressed the inter-relationship between two principles: the principle that the court may grant an interim injunction to restrain a threatened misuse of private information where the claimant can show that his claim is (at least) more likely than not to succeed, and the rule in Bonnard v Perryman ([1891] 2 Ch 269 (CA)) whereby the court almost invariably will not grant an… [read post]
13 Jul 2010, 7:28 am
Of course, it will add something to the substance and newsworthiness of the story that the police are investigating the claimant, but it seems to me that it would be tipping the scales too far in favour of the media to hold that not only the name of the claimant, but the details of the allegations against him, can normally be published as part of a story free of any right in the claimant to sue for defamation just because the general subject matter of the story is… [read post]
25 Jun 2010, 4:55 am
If Phillipson’s additional argument were correct, any question of whether privacy rights are outweighed in the ultimate balance by the public interest in the exercise of expression rights by the media would not arise. [read post]
23 Jun 2010, 1:30 am
In this feature we revisit some older posts which are still of current interest. [read post]
22 Jun 2010, 2:55 am
No prior notice had been given to any interested media organisations and the judge felt the application was more an attempt to protect Terry’s reputation and the financial interests of his commercial sponsors than to protect privacy. [read post]
27 Apr 2010, 5:36 pm
It all depends on the circumstances (Ibid, paras 55 and 56). [read post]
24 Apr 2010, 12:08 pm
We are sure that Mr Singh has not forgotten that “large corporations” have vested interests on both sides of the debate and that any reform needs to balance the rights of both claimants and defendants. [read post]
