ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. The only issues before the Interference Panel shall be:
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. There are two issues in this claim. These are:
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. Xxxx Xxxxxxx 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]: “The purpose of such an injunction is to improve the chances of the court being able to do justice after a determination of the merits at the trial. At the interlocutory stage, the court must therefore assess whether granting or withholding an injunction is more likely to produce a just result.”
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 24. 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. [27] The issues for determination in this Amended Application are as follows:
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. 60. The issues for determination arising from the facts of the case are as follows: [1] What was the relationship between the First and Third Defendants? Was the Third Defendant an independent contractor? 6 Pages 9-10 paragraph 14 of the Second Defendant’s submissions [2] If the Third Defendant was an independent contractor, can an employer be liable for torts committed by an independent contractor? [3] Was the damage to the Claimants’ house caused by the works relating to the SHHEP Project? [4] If the damage was caused by the works from the SHHEP Project, what measure of damages is to be awarded? [5] If the damage was caused by the works from the SHHEP Project, who is responsible to compensate the Claimants? A sub-issue that arises from the above issues is: what was the relationship between the First and Second Defendants? Each of these issues and sub-issue will be dealt with in turn.
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.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION. 21. There is, after the facts given above, no doubt that the Appellant s father had several insurance policies with [REDACTED], that the Appellant as heir of his 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 under the scope of the Agreement mentioned in no.12 above. But 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. Issue 1 Whether the tribunal has jurisdiction under chapter 9 of the CEPTA. Issue 2 Whether the tribunal should grant the leave sought for filing amici submissions Issue 3 Whether the respondent is in violation of Art. 9.9 of the CEPTA.
