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
For more than a century, characterisation has been discussed in the conflict of laws without reaching a consensus on a generally accepted theory. However, it is arguably the most crucial step for a court when determining its international jurisdiction and the applicable law.
It would be imperative to take into cognizance the concept of jurisdiction which is a conglomeration of two terms, such as juris (meaning “law”) and diction (meaning “to speak”), which can be translated as presuming the appropriate forum that has the potential to “speak the law.”
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. The relevant facts are summarized by the UK Supreme Court as follows at [6] and [7]: (…) The Bonga oil field is located approximately 120 km off the coast of Nigeria.
A civillaw breakthrough came in 2021, with the ruling of a Dutch court against Shell. In Smith v Fonterra , decided by New Zealand’s Supreme Court this week, we have perhaps the biggest common law breakthrough. In this most recent ruling, the Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Court of Appeal’s decision.
This post is prompted by a recent decision of the Delhi High Court (“DHC”) in Extramarks Education India v Shri Ram School (“ Extramarks case”), which although on domestic arbitration, makes various obiter observations on the nature of limitation and flexibility of parties to contract out of the same. This issue could not be simpler in India.
Considering this principle, parties in a civil suit enjoyed unrestricted access to modify their pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Indian Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Keywords- Amendment of Pleadings, Civil Procedure Code 1908. Introduction. Order VI Rule 17 applies to such situations. However with the case Cropper 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