This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Subsequently, Asiana also pursued actions against GGS and the directors of the Gate Gourmet Group. It alleged that the directors were actively involved in the chairmans unlawful conduct and therefore liable in tort under Korean law, and GGS was vicariously liable for their actions. 22] COSCO [3] [23] COSCO [5]. [24]
31, 2023), plaintiffs owned a restaurant in defendant City. This suit followed, asserting several contract and property claims, as well as a tort claim for intentional interference with business relationships. The trial court dismissed the tort claim against the City pursuant to the GTLA, and dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
The UK Supreme Court ruled that the cause of action in the aftermath of the 2011 Bonga offshore oil spill accrued at the moment when the oil reached the shore. They rule that the cause of action had accrued at the moment when the spilled oil had reached the shore. This was a one-off event and not a continuing nuisance.
For privacy infringement, previous actions had been brought under the cause of action of breach of confidence [11] , which is a claim in equity and, thus it was unclear whether for such actions jurisdiction lies at the place of where the damage occurs. 24] This Review is due in 2023.
For example, in the English case of Boys v Chaplin , the House of Lords was unable to provide a coherent ratio decidendi due to differing opinions regarding the law applicable to torts when applying English law to heads of damages.
In fact, Kea had originally advanced a cause of action for abuse of process, claiming that the alleged fraud was an abuse of process of the Kentucky Court. The Court has set aside the protest to jurisdiction ( Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley Family Trustee Limited [2023] NZHC 466).
The New Zealand Court of Appeal has just released a judgment on the cross-border application of New Zealand consumer and fair trading legislation ( Body Corporate Number DPS 91535 v 3A Composites GmbH [2023] NZCA 647 ). They alleged negligence, breach of s 6 of the CGA and breaches of the FTA.
Here is my annual list of Halloween torts and crimes. Halloween has everything for a torts-filled holiday: battery, trespass, defamation, nuisance, product liability and more. However, my students and I often discuss the remarkably wide range of torts that comes with All Hallow’s Eve. In another June 2023 decision in Munoz v.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content