CPR. The choice of the form of Union contribution to technical assistance 🗹 Technical assistance pursuant to Article 36(4) 🞏 Technical assistance pursuant to Article 36(5)
CPR. 14.1 The Corporation will endeavor to have C.P.R. training offered to the Corporation employees as an in-house-training session.
CPR. Since it is mandatory by the Police Department that all guards must be certified in CPR every two (2) years, where possible, classes for CPR will be scheduled during the school year during the day, Monday through Friday. Mouth apparatus will be provided to each guard and replaced when needed. Employees who provide proof of certification from a training company or agency that is acceptable to the Employer will not have to retake CPR training. The Employer will not withhold acceptance of such certification unreasonably.
CPR. School will notify Students that Sharp requires that they maintain current certification/competency in Basic Life Support (also referred to as Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation – “CPR”) throughout the their participation in the learning experience at Sharp. Students’ CPR certification requirements shall be the same as the requirements applicable to Sharp employees at the unit/department/clinic to which the Students are assigned. Students are required to maintain documentation of current CPR certification while at Sharp, and each Student agrees that he/she may be periodically audited to ensure his/her documentation is current. Students who are unable to provide documentation or who are unwilling to allow verification of current CPR certification shall not be permitted to participate in the learning experience at a Sharp Facility until they do so.
CPR. This is different from an Application to strike out. There is no rule, which provides that the Application to strike out must be granted. Rather, this is a discretion of the Court, to which the law as developed relevant to Part 26.2 CPR must be applied and a decision arrived at. [43] Unlike default judgment, striking out is considered a draconian measure and one to be used sparingly. The Court has to take into account the overriding objective and the opportunity of a Defendant to defend the matter. The Court is tasked with balancing the interests of the parties, in the interest of fairness and justice. [44] Having read the Defence of Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx, I do not believe it would be a proper use of the Court’s discretion to grant the Claimant’s Application to strike out the Defence at this stage. Firstly, the Court’s permission was not necessary, and secondly, Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx received a gift under the Last Will and Testament of the deceased, and he is entitled to have the Claimant prove that the Deed of Assignment is sufficient to deny him this entitlement under the Will. I can see no prejudice, surprise or disadvantage to the Claimant in proving same. [45] Therefore, it cannot be said that Xxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx’ failure to file his Defence pursuant to Part 10.3(1) CPR, equates to a breach of Parts 10.3(5) and (6) CPR, for which his Defence ought to be struck out. Nor did he have to apply for relief from sanction pursuant to Part 26.7 CPR since no sanction had been imposed by the late filing of the defence. Issue 2- Should the Defence be struck out pursuant to 26.2(1) (b) and (c) of the CPR because the said Defence is an abuse of the Court's process and discloses no ground for defending the Claim? [46] The law on abuse of process was considered by this Court in Rivulet Investment Group Limited v Arabco Company Limited & Ors:4 “[32] The term “abuse of the court’s process” is neither defined in the CPR 1998 nor the English Counterpart nor in any practice direction. Xxxx Xxxxxxx in Attorney General v Barker5 albeit in a different context, explained “abuse of the court’s process” as “using that process for a purpose or in a way significantly different from its ordinary and proper use”. I am of the view that this is a fitting explanation for the concept of “abuse of the process of the court”.
CPR. If a party does not wish to call that witness he may give a notice to that effect to the other party of not less than 21 days before the trial. See Part 29.9 (2) CPR. It is obvious that in cases where there is a dispute of fact the maker of the witness statement must attend to be cross-examined on his statement unless there is some compelling reason not to do so. Indeed a Claimant runs a considerable risk in not filing his witness statement, as it can ultimately lead to a Court concluding that there is simply no evidence to be adduced from him in support of his claim.
CPR. The implementation report submitted in 2016 shall cover the financial years 2014 and 2015. For the reports submitted in 2017 and 2019, the deadline referred to in paragraph 1 shall be 30 June. Annual implementation reports shall set out key information on implementation of the Programme and its priorities by reference to the financial data, common and programme-specific indicators and quantified target values, including changes in the value of result indicators where appropriate, and, beginning from the annual implementation report to be submitted in 2017, the milestones defined in the performance framework. The data transmitted shall relate to values for indicators for fully implemented operations and also, where possible, having regard to the stage of implementation, for selected operations. They shall also set out a synthesis of the findings of all evaluations of the programme that have become available during the previous financial year, any issues which affect the performance of the programme, and the measures taken. Where appropriate, annual implementation reports shall also set out progress in preparation and implementation of major projects and joint action plans.
CPR. Issue 3 - Should the Amended Defence and Counterclaim be struck out pursuant to Part 26.2 (1) (a) of the CPR? [69] In deciding whether the Amended Defence and Counterclaim13 ought to be struck out, a determination of what stage of proceedings they were filed needs to be made. This is dependent on the Case Management Conference (CMC). [70] From the Court’s record, the first CMC began on the 23 April 2018. The first CMC was on that date adjourned to 11 June 2018 at 10:30am in Courtroom SF04.
CPR. The rules permit an in rem claim to be instituted in respect of matters which involve the construction or repair of equipment on a ship or the relevant dock charges or dues.