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
The different characterization of limitation as a procedural or substantive issue adds more to the complexity. The Supreme Court of India (“SC”) and the Law Commission of India have characterised the law of limitation as a procedurallaw. Interestingly, the Singapore Court of Appeal in BBA v.
When confronted with international parallel proceedings due to the existence of a competent foreign court having adjudicative jurisdiction, the seized foreign court located in common law jurisdictions seems to see it as no offence to Chinese courts by granting anti-suit injunctions to restrain Chinese proceedings.
By Zhengxin Huo, Professor of Law, China University of Polit’l Science and Law; Associate Member of International Academy of Comparative Law; Observer of the UNESCO 1970 Convention. Against this background, the lawsuit before the Chinese court is more important in terms of legal analysis. Email: zhengxinh@cupl.edu.cn.
However, as I have learned more about the procedural history preceding the decisions of the Dubai Supreme Court (“DSC”), which was not available to me when I posted my previous comment, greater emphasis will be placed on the general factual background of the case. First Appeal: DSC, Appeal No. Second Appeal: DSC, Appeal No.
(Cornell), Bachelor of Laws (ZUEL). * The doctrine of forum non conveniens is an important principle in civilprocedurelaws and frequently applied by courts in many legal systems, especially those of common law countries. For instance, in Jiahua International Limited, Ruixiang Limited v.
Judicial mediation is a unique dispute resolution mechanism in Chinese civilprocedure. Wherever civil disputes are brought to the court, the judge should, based on parties’ consent, mediate before adjudicating. Zilin Hao, Anjie Law Firm, Beijing, China. What is a judicial mediation settlement.
The monograph predominantly examines 19 Indonesian court decisions on choice of law in international commercial contracts during the period, 2000-2020. Finally, this second chapter discusses the limits on choice of law, such as public policy and mandatory rules.
Considering this principle, parties in a civil suit enjoyed unrestricted access to modify their pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Indian CivilProcedure Code, 1908. Keywords- Amendment of Pleadings, CivilProcedure Code 1908. Introduction. Order VI Rule 17 applies to such situations. 6] Order VI Rule 17.
First, you are looking at a neutral forum and you may be hoping to avoid the local courts where the other side is located and unfamiliar legal systems and practice. You want to have an exit strategy that provides for arbitration where no party has a home court advantage thereby having the dispute placed in neutral forum.
On November 30, 2023, the Higher Administrative Court Berlin-Brandenburg ruled in DUH and BUND v. Germany of the Federal Constitutional Court, the focus of the decision is not on fundamental rights, but on administrative questions of climate governance and enforcement. Climate litigation in Germany has achieved another major victory.
Written by Jidong Lin, Wuhan University Institute of International Law Background China’s newly amended CivilProcedureLaw (“CPL 2024”), which came into effect on 1 January 2024, introduces several distinct and innovative changes.
Once again , the Hague Academy of International Law brought distinguished speakers to the fragrant harbour to deliver lectures on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters . 301 CivilProcedureLaw (2023). 7 (1) lit. Westacre Investments 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