factortane v legal secretary of state 1989 what did it clarify?
823972
http://www.jspubs.com/Experts/cr/detail.cfm?id=14\n\n"Expert witnesses should not have any financial interest in a case in which they are instructed. This means experts must not accept payment terms that depend on the outcome of the case."
409506
It looks like it. I dont see anything on it after 2004 ruling or i past over it one. Probable settle after that.
146120
look under british laws cause s. africa was owned by brittan, maybe in the a.m. call a high priced lawyer & ask them, cause most of the time your allowed one free question, what about ask the on line lawyer, hope you can under stand my chitter-chatter typing
132727
Section 147 of the N.I.Act:- notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every offence punishable under this Code (N.I. Act) shall be compoundable.\nanything else?\nmuse_christ@yahoo.com
130245
I don't get what you are asking - what do you mean by affirmative actions?  I need more info!  If the contract didn't exist - what is the plaintiff basing the claim off of - i.e. quasi contract or implied in fact contract etc etc. Or are you representing the defendant and want to get out of the contract because the plainitff induced you to creat one with fraud?
1151149
I understand your question. Maybe this could help:\n\nhttp://www.legaldocument.com/products.html
900907
But the plaintiff seems to have won. "The appeal must be allowed and the judgment be reversed. It must be declared that the defendant purchased the Delmar estates as a trustee for the plaintiff, but subject to a charge for the amount paid to the Dutch company."\n\nIn this day and age (and ignoring the point that Roman Dutch law may have been relevant) one would want to look at (depending whether you are in England or in the USA):\n\n-- the law regarding registration of title and charges to land\n-- bankruptcy law (but the rights of trust beneficiaries are similar today)\n-- statutes in derogation of the common law, particularly regarding limitations\n-- the law of adverse possession.\n\nJust some ideas.
969178
In the UK, the burden of proof in civil (or tort) cases is "on the balance of probabilities" and in criminal cases "beyond a reasonable doubt". \n\nOf the three examples you gave:\n\n1. Negligence is generally a tortuous claim and therefore is determined on the balance of probabilities. (ie. 51% over 49%)\n\n2. Acting with undue care or attention is an aspect of negligence.  Although with negligence, you must first prove there was a duty of care owed and then secondly prove that on the balance, that duty was breached. (For a far better explanation of the above, see: Lord Atkins dictum in Donoghue v. Stevenson, Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, and most recently, Caparo Industries v. Dickman)\n\n3. The defence of Automatism is used in criminal cases and has a variety of barriers depending on whether you are claiming insane automatism which is caused by a "disease of the mind" (R v. Quick) or non-insane automatism with is due to external factors (R v. Hennessy).
369443
As long as both parties have signed and that no-one was under the influence of any substances it is legally a binding document that can stand up in court.Very hard to prove that the persons themselves actually signed it and that neither parties were under the influence unless witnessed by a justice of the peace or a court officer.
721169
I take it that you have reference to part 5 of Article 35 which states that  "The Court of Justice shall have no jurisdiction to review the validity or proportionality of operations carried out by the police or other law enforcement services..."\n\nThat is because the EU does not purport to be, at this time, the Government of Europe. The manner and nature of maintenance of law and order is seen as a largely domestic issue which is an essential part of National sovereignty. The constituent members of the EU are not ready at this time to surrender control of domestic security matters to a multinational body.
427895
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 340.5.  In an action for injury or death against a health care provider based upon such person's alleged professional negligence, the time for the commencement of action shall be three years after the date of injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered, the injury, whichever occurs first.  In no event shall the time for commencement of legal action exceed three years unless tolled for any of the following:  (1) upon proof of fraud, (2) intentional concealment, or (3) the presence of a foreign body, which has no therapeutic or diagnostic purpose or effect, in the person of the injured person.  Actions by a minor shall be commenced within three years from the date of the alleged wrongful act except that actions by a minor under the full age of six years shall be commenced within three years or prior to his eighth birthday whichever provides a longer period.  Such time limitation shall be tolled for minors for any period during which parent or guardian and defendant's insurer or health care provider have committed fraud or collusion in the failure to bring an action on behalf of the injured minor for professional negligence.\n----\n\nThat's the statute. However, as to reserving the right to file, the unanswered question is why do you think you may lose your right? Since you present no facts on the issue, I can't comment further.
781509
None.  It was enacted as a response to the searches carried out by England which were the primary reason for the revolutionary wat.  England was issuing "writs of assistance" to customs officers to combat the growing problem of smuggling to avoid taxes paid to England.
1124959
Generally not.  A suit to confirm title is between the two parties of interest and shouldn't impact other innocent parties but that too depends upon state and jurisdiction.  It also depends upon whether the parties were aware or reasonably should have been aware that there was a cloud upon the title.
689121
this sounds like a concept that is specific to UK law. there is a definition in the source below but you might need to use edit/find to find the specific reference
531228
It is quite simple in the eyes of the law, especially in Britian.\nA feotus is not given legal personality until it can live separately from it's mother (Re v F) so hence it is not murder.\n\nIn France there was a hugely important case, Vo v France, whereby a mother, whose baby was wrongly aborted, tried to bring charges against the state for unintential homicide.  It was held that as a child does not have legal personality then he cannot be murdered.  Although the mother in this case did receive substantial damages.\n\nWhen there is an accident involving a pregnant mother that affects the child and the child is subsequently born alive then the child can sue or bring criminal damages against the other party (McLuskey v HMA).\n\nIt would go against the publc policy of most countries to outlaw abortion, although it is still illegal in to have an abortion carried out in Ireland which is a maily Catholic country.
1150498
http://www.lectlaw.com/def.htm
693584
1st - Read the case up till House of Lords' Decision. Might help you in understanding the why Lord Atkin came up with this rule ;)\n\n2nd - in answering you question, write the scenario of the case.\n\n3rd - Give the elements of negligence. In order to suceed, they must reach all the elements ;)\n\np/s: in that case, Lord atkin did define who's the neighbour.. u just have to read the case, and find the elements of tort of negligence. oh yeah, give other cases in negligence as examples\n\ngood luck