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 counterclaim asserted claims for breach of contract, libel and slander based on statements allegedly made online and to third parties by plaintiffs about defendant. Further, the trial court should consider any arguments regarding timeliness of both the petition to dismiss and the response thereto under the statute on remand.
Recently, the Delhi High Court in the case of Honasa Consumer Limited v RSM General Trading LLC granted an anti-enforcement injunction against the execution proceedings instituted in the Dubai Court on the ground that it threatened the arbitral process in India. The injunction was granted under S.9
Yin’s evidence raised a primafaciecase that he had been denied natural justice in the Chinese proceedings: [91]. The Australian court considered a forum statute that would give effect to foreign decrees if they would be recognised under the law of the domicile. The husband obtained a decree of divorce in the US.
Decision The court concluded that Lewis failed to make a primafaciecase for discrimination because her comparators were not “similarly situated in all material respects.” Loyola argued that a valid contract existed, and any claims of unjust enrichment were redundant given the contract.
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