Search for: "Owusu v. Ins*" Results 21 - 29 of 29
Sorted by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
He observed that the test for duty of care in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]  2 AC 605[3] was not necessarily the starting point in establishing whether a duty of care is owed by a parent company as this was not a “novel category of common law negligence liability”, but rather had already been considered in previous cases. [read post]
10 May 2010, 11:30 pm by Martin George
But not those whose last chance to avoid closure or insolvency is a successful claim – colloquially, ‘bet-all’ claimants. [read post]
24 Aug 2019, 6:30 am by Dan Ernst
(Center for History and Economics, Harvard University)Moderators: Elizabeth Lhost, Dartmouth College (elizabeth.d.lhost@dartmouth.edu) and Emma Rothschild, Harvard University (rothsch@fas.harvard.edu)Convener: Kalyani Ramnath, Harvard University (kalyaniramnath@fas.harvard.edu)Debjani Bhattacharya, Drexel University (db893@drexel.edu) South Asia 1Julia Stephens, Rutgers University (julia.stephens@rutgers.edu) South Asia 2Tatiana Seijas, Rutgers University… [read post]
3 Aug 2023, 4:49 am by Ralf Michaels
The objection of forum non conveniens does not apply in the Brussels I Regulation system (as clarified in the CJEU’s Owusu decision). [read post]