ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION Clause Samples
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. There are two issues in this claim. These are:
(1) Whether or not the operation and effect of the provisions of Sections 7(1), 7(2) and 37(1) of the Act contravene the Claimants’ constitutional right not to be hindered in the enjoyment of their freedom of association conferred by section 13(1) of the Belize Constitution.
(2) Whether or not the operation and effect of the provisions of Sections 7(1), 7 (2) and 37 of the Act contravene the Claimants’ constitutional right not to be denied the opportunity to gain their living by work or by pursuing an occupation or engaging in a trade which they freely choose conferred by section 15(1) of the Belize Constitution.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The only issues before the Interference Panel shall be:
(iii) The Interference Panel shall render a decision on all three issues regardless of the outcome of its determination on any of them. However, the Interference Panel shall only disclose to the Parties such portions of its decision as are necessary to implement Sections 21(j) and 21(m).
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. There is no doubt that the Appellant s father had several insurance policies with [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] , that the Appellant as heir of her parents could be entitled to the proceeds of these policies and that all family members were Holocaust victims. Therefore, the claim of the Appellant in general is within the scope of the Agreement. But, as far as the policies [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] are concerned, the Respondent has succeeded in establishing a valid defence in accordance with the Agreement. According to Section 17.3 Appeal Guidelines the claimant is not entitled to payment from the Foundation funds if;
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The Appellant formulated three (3) issues for determination following its grounds of appeal. The said issues as contained in page 2 of the Appellant’s Final Written Address are as follows:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. [27] The issues for determination in this Amended Application are as follows:
Issue 1- Should the Defence to the Claimant’s Claim be struck out pursuant to Part 26.2 (1) (a) of the CPR on the basis that he failed to comply with Part 10.3 and Part 26.7 of the CPR? Issue 2- Should the Defence be struck out pursuant to 26.2(1) (b) and (c) of the CPR on the basis the said Defence is an abuse of the Court's process and discloses no ground for defending the Claim? Issue 3 - Should the Amended Defence and Counterclaim be struck out pursuant to Issue 4- Should the Amended Defence and Counterclaim be struck out pursuant to 26.2(1) (b) and (c) of the CPR because the said Amended Defence and Counterclaim is an abuse of the Court's process and discloses no ground for defending or bringing the Claim? Issue 5- Should the Court grant an order for Summary Judgement for the Claimant pursuant to Part 15.2 CPR against the First and Second Defendants?
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 60. The issues for determination arising from the facts of the case are as follows: 6 Pages 9-10 paragraph 14 of the Second Defendant’s submissions
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. [9] In accordance with the principles laid out in the well known case of American Cyanamid Co. v Ethicon Ltd [1975] 1 ALL ER 504, the court, in the exercise of its power to grant injunctive relief must first be satisfied that there is a serious issue to be tried. If there is no serious issue, the injunction should not be granted. If the material raised shows that there is a serious issue to be tried but damages would be an adequate remedy for the claimant and the defendant would be in a financial position to pay them, then the injunction should also not be granted. [10] However, if damages would not provide an adequate remedy for the claimants if they were to succeed at the trial, then the court should undertake a further assessment. The court is to consider whether the defendant, if it was successful at the trial, would be adequately compensated under the claimants’ undertaking as to damages for the loss that would have been sustained by being prevented from selling the property between the time of the application and the time of trial. If damages would be an adequate remedy and the claimants were in a financial position to pay them, there would be no reason to refuse the injunction. However, where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the respective remedies in damages, the court is to then consider the question of the balance of convenience, i.e., does it favour a grant or refusal of the injunction. [11] The purpose of granting such an injunction was highlighted by the Privy Council in National Commercial Bank Jamaica Ltd v Olint Corporation Limited [2009] UKPC 16. Lord ▇▇▇▇▇▇▇ who delivered the judgment of the court reiterated the principles as to the grant of an injunction as set out in American Cyanamid and expressed the following [paragraph 16]:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. (i) Whether the Loan Note dated 23rd March, 2007 is unlawful as being contrary to section 7 of the Finance and Audit (Reform) Act No. 12 of 2005.
(ii) Whether the Additional Loan Facility dated 29th March, 2007 is unlawful as being contrary to section 7 of the Finance and Audit (Reform) Act No. 12 of 2005.
(iii) Whether the Claimants have locus standi to bring this claim.