Search for: "Unknown Persons or Claimants"
Results 481 - 500
of 562
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
3 Mar 2011, 1:21 pm
failure to record a licence plate number at the time of the accident when the plaintiff has the opportunity to do so or obtain information as to the driver’s identity, either personally or through the assistance of others, but does not take advantage of the opportunity amounts to a failure to take reasonable steps at the time of the accident: Burley at paras. 23-24;Watson v. [read post]
4 Feb 2011, 3:04 am
This case sheds a light on how personal injury firms get, evaluate and reject clients. [read post]
3 Feb 2011, 1:30 pm
The person or business cannot make any further claim. [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 8:03 pm
., and MARY ANN PADOT, his wife; ANY AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER, OR AGAINST THE HEREIN N [read post]
21 Jan 2011, 2:51 am
She cited the judgment of Tugendhat J in Terry v Persons Unknown and in particular paragraph 139 in which he said: If a prohibition of the disclosure of the making of the injunction is included in an order for the purpose of preventing tipping off, and if the order provides for a return date (as the Practice Direction envisages) then the prohibition on disclosure may normally be expected to expire once the alleged wrongdoer has been served with an injunction, or at the return date… [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 8:30 am
The Claims fund has created a "quick Pay" option which offers reasonably desperate claimants the right to a quick lump sum payment in exchange for a waiver. [read post]
20 Jan 2011, 8:30 am
The Claims fund has created a "quick Pay" option which offers reasonably desperate claimants the right to a quick lump sum payment in exchange for a waiver. [read post]
12 Jan 2011, 4:27 pm
The Judge, Mr Justice Eady, concluded at paragraph 236 of his Judgment that “no amount of damages can fully compensate the Claimant for the damage done. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 11:19 am
After the $50,000 third-party credit was applied, the net award to the claimant was $50,000. [read post]
3 Jan 2011, 11:19 am
After the $50,000 third-party credit was applied, the net award to the claimant was $50,000. [read post]
16 Dec 2010, 6:19 am
Motor Vehicle Acc Indemnification Corp., 83 AD2d 803 (1st Dept. 1981) found:The record before this Court demonstrates that claimant is not a qualified person. [read post]
13 Dec 2010, 4:23 pm
In Terry v Persons Unknown ([2010] EWHC 119 (QB)) Mr Justice Tugendhat expressed the view that privacy and defamation only overlap in a limited class of cases. [read post]
3 Dec 2010, 3:00 am
If the third party publishes the information he is potentially guilty of a criminal contempt for undermining the purpose of the interim injunction (see for example X and Y v Persons Unknown [2006] EWHC 2783 (QB)). [read post]
25 Nov 2010, 4:08 pm
In X & Y v Persons Unknown ([2007] 1 FLR 1567 at [42]-[49]). [read post]
23 Nov 2010, 10:14 pm
Those are the paragraphs in which it is alleged that the identity of the driver/owner was ascertainable and that the claimant has not complied with the Act in failing to make all reasonable efforts to ascertain the identity of the unknown driver. [read post]
16 Nov 2010, 6:51 am
As yet, it is unknown whether the Home Office will appeal the decision. [read post]
7 Nov 2010, 9:55 pm
But an Order will limit the extent to which the private lives of the Claimant and others are interfered with notwithstanding that it identifies the Claimant. [read post]
6 Nov 2010, 5:53 am
The short message of this case is to reinforce the point that Mr Justice Tugendhat made in Terry v Persons Unknown - the court will, in each privacy case, need to be properly satisfied that the interests of the public in open justice have been properly taken into account in re [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]
