DOCSLIB.ORG

General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 S.R

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 S.R Authorised Version Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015 S.R. No. 103/2015 TABLE OF PROVISIONS Rule Page Order 1—Preliminary 1 Part 1—Citation, commencement and revocation 1 1.01 Title and object 1 1.02 Authorising provisions 1 1.03 Commencement and revocation 1 Part 2—Application of Rules 2 1.04 Definitions 2 1.05 Application 2 1.06 Jurisdiction not affected 2 1.12 Order to review 3 Part 3—Interpretation 3 1.13 Definitions 3 Part 4—Miscellaneous 6 1.14 Exercise of power 6 1.14.1 Exercise of powers of Registrar by Associate Judge 6 1.15 Procedure wanting or in doubt 7 1.16 Act by corporation 7 1.17 Corporation a party 7 1.18 Power to act by solicitor 8 1.19 Continuation of address for service 8 Order 2—Non-compliance with the Rules 9 2.01 Effect of non-compliance 9 2.02 Originating process 9 2.03 Application to set aside for irregularity 9 2.04 Dispensing with compliance 10 Order 3—Time, sittings and Court office 11 3.01 Calculating time 11 3.02 Extension and abridgement 11 3.03 Fixing time 12 Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel i Rule Page 3.04 Process in vacation 12 3.05 Time for service 12 3.06 Proceedings after a year 12 3.07 Sittings and vacation 13 3.08 Office 13 3.09 Office hours 13 Order 4—Process in the Court 14 Part 1—General 14 4.01 How proceeding commenced 14 4.02 Interlocutory application 14 4.03 Names of parties 14 4.04 When writ required 15 4.05 When originating motion required 15 4.06 Optional commencement by originating motion 15 4.07 Continuance as writ of proceeding by originating motion 16 4.08 Urgent case 16 Part 2—Certification requirements for proceedings 17 4.09 Overarching obligations certification 17 4.09.1 Certification of prior overarching obligations certification 17 4.10 Proper basis certification 17 Order 5—Content, filing and duration of originating process 18 5.01 Definitions 18 5.02 Form of originating process 18 5.03 Appearance 18 5.04 Indorsement of claim on writ 19 5.05 Indorsement of claim on motion 19 5.06 Indorsement as to capacity 19 5.07 Address of parties 19 5.08 Place and mode of trial 20 5.09 Stay on payment of costs 20 5.10 Petition 21 5.11 Filing of originating process 21 5.12 Duration and renewal of originating process 23 Order 6—Service 25 6.01 When personal service necessary 25 6.02 Personal service of originating process 25 6.03 How personal service effected 25 6.04 Service on particular defendants 26 6.05 Motor car death or bodily injury 27 6.06 Address for service 27 6.06.1 Solicitor changing address 28 6.07 How ordinary service effected 28 Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel ii Rule Page 6.08 Identity of person served 31 6.09 Acceptance of service by solicitor 31 6.10 Substituted service 31 6.11 Confirmation of informal service 32 6.12 Service by filing 32 6.13 Service on agent 32 6.14 Service under contract 33 6.15 Recovery of vacant land 33 6.16 Service of notice by the Court 34 6.17 Affidavit of service 34 Order 7—Service out of Australia 36 Part 1—When service out is allowed 36 7.01 For what claims 36 7.02 Indorsement on originating process 38 7.03 Mode of service out of Australia 39 7.04 Leave to proceed where no appearance 39 7.05 Stay, setting aside service etc. 40 7.06 Service of other process by leave 40 7.07 Service of counterclaim or third party notice 41 7.08 Application for leave 41 Part 2—Service in foreign country 42 7.09 Application 42 7.10 Documents required 42 7.11 Translation 43 7.12 Request and undertaking 43 7.13 Procedure on lodgment and filing 44 7.14 Evidence of service 44 7.15 Order for payment of expenses 45 Order 7A—Trans-Tasman proceedings 46 7A.01 Definitions 46 7A.02 Application of Order 46 7A.03 Commencement of proceeding for order under Trans- Tasman Proceedings Act 47 7A.04 Interlocutory application under Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 47 7A.05 Application for interim relief 47 7A.06 Application for leave to serve subpoena in New Zealand 48 7A.07 Form of subpoena 49 7A.08 Application to set aside subpoena 50 7A.09 Application for issue of certificate of non-compliance with subpoena 50 7A.10 Form of certificate of non-compliance 51 7A.11 Notice of registration of NZ judgment 51 Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel iii Rule Page 7A.12 Application for extension of time to give notice of registration of NZ judgment 51 7A.13 Application to set aside registration of NZ judgment 52 7A.14 Application for stay of enforcement of registered NZ judgment to enable liable person to appeal 52 7A.15 Application for extension of time to apply for stay of enforcement of registered NZ judgment to enable liable person to appeal 53 7A.16 Application for order for use of audio link or audiovisual link 53 Order 8—Appearance 54 8.01 Application 54 8.02 Appearance before taking step 54 8.03 Who to file appearance 54 8.04 Time for appearance 54 8.05 Mode of filing appearance 55 8.06 Address for service of defendant 55 8.07 Late appearance 56 8.08 Conditional appearance 57 8.09 Setting aside writ or originating motion 57 Order 9—Joinder of claims and parties 58 9.01 Joinder of claims 58 9.02 Permissive joinder of parties 58 9.03 Joinder of necessary parties 58 9.04 Joinder inconvenient 59 9.05 Effect of misjoinder or non-joinder of party 60 9.06 Addition, removal, substitution of party 60 9.07 Procedure for addition of party 60 9.08 Defendant dead at commencement of proceeding 61 9.09 Change of party on death, bankruptcy 63 9.10 Failure to proceed after death of party 64 9.11 Amendment of proceedings after change of party 65 9.12 Consolidation or trial together 66 9.13 Conduct of proceeding 67 Order 10—Counterclaim 68 10.01 Application of Order 68 10.02 When counterclaim allowed 68 10.03 Counterclaim against plaintiff and another person 68 10.04 Procedure after counterclaim against another person 68 10.05 Trial of counterclaim 70 10.06 Counterclaim inconvenient 70 10.07 Stay of claim 70 10.08 Counterclaim on stay etc., of original proceeding 70 10.09 Judgment for balance 71 Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel iv Rule Page Order 11—Third party procedure 72 11.01 Claim by third party notice 72 11.02 Statement of claim on third party notice 72 11.03 Time for appearance 72 11.04 Filing and service of third party notice 73 11.05 Time for third party notice 73 11.06 Leave to file third party notice 74 11.07 Other requirements for service 74 11.08 Appearance by third party 75 11.09 Defence of third party 75 11.10 Counterclaim by third party 76 11.11 Default by third party 76 11.12 Discovery and trial 77 11.13 Third party directions 78 11.14 Judgment between defendant and third party 79 11.15 Claim against another party 79 11.16 Fourth and subsequent parties 80 11.17 Counterclaim 80 Order 12—Interpleader 81 12.01 Definitions 81 12.02 Stakeholder's interpleader 81 12.03 Sheriff's interpleader 82 12.04 Sheriff's summons to state claim 82 12.05 Notice to execution creditor 83 12.06 Admission of claim 83 12.07 Interpleader summons 84 12.08 Powers of Court 84 12.09 Default by claimant 85 12.10 Neutrality of applicant 86 12.11 Order in several proceedings 86 12.12 Trial of interpleader question 87 Order 13—Pleadings 88 13.01 Formal requirements 88 13.02 Content of pleading 88 13.03 Document or conversation 89 13.04 Fact presumed true 89 13.05 Condition precedent 89 13.06 Implied contract or relation 89 13.07 Matter which must be pleaded 89 13.08 Subsequent fact 90 13.09 Inconsistent pleading 90 13.10 Particulars of pleading 90 13.11 Order for particulars 92 13.12 Admission and denials 92 Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel v Rule Page 13.13 Denial by joinder of issue 93 13.14 Money claim as defence 93 13.15 Counterclaim 94 Order 14—Service of pleadings 95 14.01 Statement of claim indorsed on writ 95 14.02 Statement of claim not indorsed on writ 95 14.03 Alteration of claim as indorsed on writ 95 14.04 Service of defence 95 14.05 Reply 96 14.06 Pleading after reply 96 14.07 Defence to counterclaim 96 14.08 Close of pleadings 96 14.09 Order as to pleadings 97 14.10 Filing of pleadings 97 Order 15—Persons under disability 98 15.01 Definitions 98 15.02 Litigation guardian of person under disability 98 15.03 Appointment of litigation guardian 98 15.04 No appearance by person under disability 100 15.05 Application to discharge or vary certain orders 100 15.06 Pleading admission by person under disability 100 15.07 Discovery 100 15.08 Compromise of claim by a person under disability 101 15.09 Execution against money in court 102 15.10 Counterclaim and claim by third party notice 103 Order 16—Executors, administrators and trustees 104 16.01 Representation of unascertained persons 104 16.02 Beneficiaries 105 16.03 Deceased person 106 Order 17—Partners and sole proprietors 107 17.01 Partners 107 17.02 Disclosure of partners 107 17.03 Service of originating process 108 17.04 Appearance by partners 108 17.05 No appearance except by partners 109 17.06 Appearance under objection of person sued as partner 109 17.07 Enforcement of judgment 110 17.08 Enforcement between partners 111 17.09 Attachment of debts 111 17.10 Person using the business name 111 17.11 Charge on partner's interest 112 Order 18—Representative proceeding 113 Authorised by the Chief Parliamentary Counsel vi Rule Page 18.01 Application 113 18.02 Proceeding by or against representative 113 18.03 Order for representation by defendant 113 18.04 Effect of judgment 113 Order 18A—Group proceeding 115 18A.01 Application 115 18A.02 Consent to be group member 115 18A.04 Opting out 115 18A.05 Order involving notice 115 Order 19—Notice of constitutional matter 116 19.01 Definitions
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: Proposed Changes, Open Justice
    Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes Open justice This consultation begins on 12/07/18 This consultation ends on 23/08/18 Part 39 Civil Procedure Rules: proposed changes Open justice A consultation produced by the Ministry of Justice. It is also available at https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ About this consultation To: The consultation is aimed at court users in England and Wales. Duration: From 12/07/18 to 23/08/18 Enquiries (including requests Civil Justice and Law Policy for the paper in an alternative Ministry of Justice format) to: 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: [email protected] How to respond: Please send your response by 23/08/18 to: Civil Justice and Law Policy Ministry of Justice 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ Tel: 020 3334 3555 Email: [email protected] Additional ways to feed in your N/A views: Response paper: A response to this consultation exercise is due to be published within three months of the consultation closing at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/ Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper Contents Foreword 3 Executive summary 5 Introduction 8 The proposals 9 Impact assessments 14 About you 15 Contact details/How to respond 16 Consultation principles 19 1 Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper 2 Part 39 CPR: Open Justice Consultation Paper Foreword The justice system in England and Wales is internationally recognised as one of the finest in the world; our strong and independent judiciary, world-class legal profession and our legal system are the basis of a modern society and strong economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of Jamaica Civil Procedure Rules 2002
    SUPREME COURT OF JAMAICA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2002 i CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES - 20002 ii SUPREME COURT OF JAMAICA CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES 2002 REVISED, AS AT SEPTEMBER 18, 2006 Published on behalf of the Government of Jamaica by The Caribbean Law Publishing Company Limited Kingston, Jamaica iii CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES - 20002 First published in Jamaica 2002 by The Caribbean Law Publishing Company 11 Cunningham Avenue PO Box 686 Kingston 6 Revised 2006 © The Government of Jamaica All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the Government of Jamaica. ISBN 976-8167-47-5 A catalogue of record of this book is available from the National Library of Jamaica Typeset by Shelly-Gail Folkes Set in Stone Informal 10pt Printed in the United States of America iv The Judicature (Rules of Court) Act [The Civil Procedure Rules 2002] In exercise of the powers conferred upon the Rules Committee of the Supreme Court by Section 4 of the Judicature (Rules of Court) Act, the following Rules are hereby made: CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2002 1. These Rules may be cited as the Civil Procedure Rules, 2002, and shall come into operation, subject to the transitional provisions contained in part 73, on January 1, 2003. 2. All Rules of Court relating to the procedure in civil proceedings in the Supreme Court, save for those relating to insolvency (including winding up of Companies and bankruptcy), and matrimonial proceedings are hereby revoked.
    [Show full text]
  • Defamation and the Internet: Scoping Study
    Law Commission DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET A Preliminary Investigation Scoping Study No 2 December 2002 The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 to promote the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale, QC Mr Stuart Bridge Professor Martin Partington, CBE Judge Alan Wilkie, QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. The paper was completed on 8 November 2002. This preliminary investigation is the second of two scoping studies, carried out in response to a request from the Lord Chancellor dated 31 January 2002.1 Comments may be sent to: David Willink Civil Law Development Division Lord Chancellor’s Department Southside 105 Victoria Street London SW1E 6QT email: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments could be sent by email or email attachment, in any commonly used format. © Crown copyright 2002 1 The first study, Aspects of Defamation Procedure, was published in May 2002, and is available on the Internet at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. THE LAW COMMISSION DEFAMATION AND THE INTERNET: A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1 The issues 1.4 1 ISP liability for other people’s material 1.5 1 The limitation period and online archives 1.6 2 Jurisdiction issues 1.8 2 Contempt of court 1.10 2 Summary of conclusions 1.11 2 Liability of internet service providers 1.12 2 Archives and
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2012 The rP oblem of Trans-National Libel Lili Levi University of Miami School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, and the Jurisdiction Commons Recommended Citation Lili Levi, The Problem of Trans-National Libel, 60 Am. J. Comp. L. 507 (2012). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LILI LEVI* The Problem of Trans-National Libelt Forum shopping in trans-nationallibel cases-"libel tourism"- has a chilling effect on journalism, academic scholarship,and scien- tific criticism. The United States and Britain (the most popular venue for such cases) have recently attempted to address the issue legisla- tively. In 2010, the United States passed the SPEECH Act, which prohibits recognition and enforcement of libel judgments from juris- dictions applying law less speech-protective than the First Amendment. In Britain, consultation has closed and the Parliamen- tary Joint Committee has issued its report on a broad-ranginglibel reform bill proposed by the Government in March 2011. This Article questions the extent to which the SPEECH Act and the Draft Defama- tion Bill will accomplish their stated aims.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report
    The New Civil Procedure Rules First Report May 2017 Contents Foreword ........................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction .................................................................................................... 3 Background to the rules rewrite project.............................................................................. 3 The Acts ........................................................................................................................ 3 The Rules Rewrite Working Group ................................................................................. 4 The Rules Rewrite Drafting Team and implementation of the 2014 Act .......................... 5 The Rules Rewrite Project ................................................................................................. 6 The scope of the project ................................................................................................. 6 Matters out with the scope of the project ........................................................................ 8 Purpose of this report ........................................................................................................ 9 Discussion papers .......................................................................................................... 9 Engagement with the public and the professions ......................................................... 10 Chapter 2. A statement of principle .............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • [2013] JMCA App 17 JAMAICA in the COURT of APPEAL SUPREME
    [2013] JMCA App 17 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 141/2010 APPLICATION NO 197/2012 BEFORE: THE HON MRS JUSTICE HARRIS JA THE HON MR JUSTICE DUKHARAN JA THE HON MISS JUSTICE PHILLIPS JA BETWEEN DARRION BROWN APPLICANT AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF JAMAICA 1ST RESPONDENT AND SPECIAL CORPORAL #154 PAUL THOMPSON 2ND RESPONDENT AND SPECIAL CORPORAL # 96 MIGUEL LYLE 3RD RESPONDENT AND DETECTIVE CORPORAL JOSEPH WILSON 4 th RESPONDENT Mrs Jacqueline Samuels-Brown QC and Miss Roxann Mars instructed by Knight Junor Samuels for the applicant Miss Lisa White and Dale Austin instructed by the Director of State Proceedings for the respondents 27 and 28 September 2012 and 2 July 2013 HARRIS JA [1] I have read in draft the judgment of my sister Phillips JA. I agree with her reasoning and conclusion and have nothing to add. DUKHARAN JA [2] I too have read in draft the judgment of Phillips JA and agree with her reasoning and conclusion. PHILLIPS JA [3] This is an application for leave to adduce as fresh evidence on appeal evidence from the personnel at the Kingston Public Hospital relative to the condition in which the applicant was kept while there, with particular reference to his being handcuffed throughout his entire hospitalization, and on his discharge being escorted by police officers to Central Police Station. [4] The appeal is from the decision of Brooks J (as he then was), who on 17 November 2010 dismissed a claim brought by the applicant for damages for assault, battery, false imprisonment and malicious prosecution with costs to the respondents to be taxed if not agreed.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Accepted Manuscript Versionadobe PDF
    Exploring eCourt innovations in New South Wales civil courts By Philippa Ryan and Maxine Evers KEYWORDS - ECOURTS, LEGAL TECHNOLOGY - ACCESS TO JUSTICE - FUTURE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION - UNREPRESENTED LITIGANTS - ONLINE COURT - ONLINE REGISTRY Some New South Wales civil courts have recently introduced electronic filing and online pre-trial appearances. These innovations have different consequences for different users of the civil justice system. Whatever the ostensible benefit, any change to the way our justice system works must enable the purpose for which it exists: access to justice. For practitioners and self-represented litigants who would otherwise travel long distances to attend court, the time and costs savings could be significant. Of course, this intended outcome depends upon the reliability and usability of the technology, as well as the competence of the users. However, for those without these skills or those who do not have access to computers and/or the Internet, this change could impede access to justice. It is too early to evaluate the success of this project, but lessons can be drawn from other jurisdictions. This paper will explore potential advantages and disadvantages of these changes for self-represented litigants and legal professionals. It will conclude that as technology is disrupting all aspects of our social and commercial arrangements, it is logical that our courts will need to keep up. Introduction In September 2015, the New South Wales civil courts launched some innovative online functionality to its services. In the Supreme, District and Local Courts, solicitors and self-represented parties can now complete, file and access forms online. While many court forms have been available via the courts’ website for more than a decade, being able to file and then access court documents electronically is new.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Procedure Rules for European Courts Geoffrey C
    University of California, Hastings College of the Law UC Hastings Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 2016 Civil Procedure Rules for European Courts Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr. UC Hastings College of the Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Civil Procedure Commons Recommended Citation Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Civil Procedure Rules for European Courts, 100 Judicature 58 (2016). Available at: http://repository.uchastings.edu/faculty_scholarship/1323 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VOLUME 100 NUMBER 2 SUMMER 2016 58 JUDICATURE VOL. 100 NO. 2 A REPORT ON THE ELI CIVIL PROCEDURE PROJECT Developing CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES FOR EUROPEAN COURTS BY GEOFFREY C. HAZARD JR. is the European Law Institute. Its Secretariat is based in Vienna, Austria; its members ELIinclude judges, lawyers, law professors, ministry of justice officials, and law firms from the European Community. It is substantially modeled on the American Law Institute, but its wider range of membership, particularly government lawyers ex officio, means that ELI has some- thing of a quasi-governmental standing. ELI is currently engaged in a number of interesting law reform projects in such areas as consumer protection law, insol- vency law, and contract law. The aim is to formulate laws and codes that could be adopted in member states, thus contribut- ing to the harmonization of law among the European countries.
    [Show full text]
  • SI/SR Template
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS 2020 No. 758 (L. 18) FAMILY PROCEEDINGS SENIOR COURTS, ENGLAND AND WALES FAMILY COURT, ENGLAND AND WALES The Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2020 Made - - - - 16th July 2020 Laid before Parliament 20th July 2020 Coming into force - - 1st October 2020 The Family Procedure Rule Committee makes the following Rules in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 75 and 76 of the Courts Act 2003(a), having fulfilled the requirements of section 79(1) of that Act, Citation, commencement and interpretation 1.—(1) These Rules may be cited as the Family Procedure (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2020 and come into force on 1st October 2020. (2) In these Rules, a reference to a Part or rule by number alone means the Part or rule so numbered in the Family Procedure Rules 2010(b). Amendments to the Family Procedure Rules 2010 2. The Family Procedure Rules 2010 are amended in accordance with rules 3 to 5 of these Rules. Amendment of Part 10 3.—(1) In rule 10.12, in the words in parentheses at the end of the rule, for the words after “Part 37” substitute “(rule 37.4(2)(c) requires a contempt application to include confirmation that any order allegedly breached or disobeyed contained a penal notice)”. (2) In rule 10.13— (a) omit “Chapter 2 of”; (b) omit “with the necessary modifications”; and (a) 2003 c.39. Section 75 was amended by paragraphs 308 and 338 of Schedule 4 and Part 2 of Schedule 18 to the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (c. 4) and by paragraphs 83 and 91 of Schedule 10 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (c.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the Court Of
    EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT LUCIA SLUHCVAP2015/0013 BETWEEN: HONOURABLE GUY JOSEPH (In his personal capacity and in his capacity as Parliamentary Representative for Castries South East) Appellant and [1] THE CONSTITUENCY BOUNDARIES COMMISSION [2] THE HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER [3] THE ATORNEY GENERAL (acting in her capacity as the legal representative of Her Excellency, the Governor General) Respondents Before: The Hon. Dame Janice M. Pereira, DBE Chief Justice The Hon. Mr. Davidson Kelvin Baptiste Justice of Appeal The Hon. Mde. Gertel Thom Justice of Appeal Appearances: Mr. Garth Patterson, QC with him Ms. Tami Pilgrim and Mr. Thomas Theobalds for the Appellant Mr. Anthony Astaphan, SC with him Mr. Jahn Siflett for the First Respondent Mr. Sydney Bennett, QC with him Mr. Leslie Mondesir for the Second Respondent Mr. Roger Forde, QC with him Mr. Dwight Lay for the Third Respondent ______________________________________ 2015: June 23, 24; Written reasons delivered 1st October 2015. _______________________________________ Civil appeal – Fresh evidence application – Whether appellant satisfied the requirements for the admittance of fresh evidence The appellant brought an administrative claim against the respondents alleging that the Constituency Boundaries Commission (“the Commission”) had contravened certain provisions of the Constitution of Saint Lucia. The Commission engaged the services of Mr. Anthony Astaphan, SC as its legal representative. The appellant filed an application for an order restraining the Commission from retaining the services of Mr. Astaphan, SC to 1 represent it in the proceedings on the claim (“the Removal Application”). He alleged inter alia that Mr. Astaphan, SC’s close and notorious relationship with the Prime Minister, the Chairman of the Commission, as well as his political alignment with the Saint Lucia Labour party will lead a fair minded and informed observer to conclude that there was a real possibility that Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Correlation Table Forms Reference Table Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure
    CORRELATION TABLE FORMS REFERENCE TABLE ARIZONA RULES OF FAMILY LAW PROCEDURE I. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION Rule 1. Scope of Rules 2. Applicability of Other Rules 3. Definitions 4. Time 5. Consolidation 6. Change of Judge 7. Protected and Unpublished Addresses 8. Telephonic Appearances and Testimony 9. Duties of Counsel 10. Representation of Children; Minors and Incompetent Persons 11. Presence of Children 12. Court Interviews of Children 13. Public Access to Proceedings 14. Sworn Written Verification; Unsworn Declarations under Penalty of Perjury 15. Affirmation in Lieu of Oath 16. Interpreters 17. Limitation on Examination of Witness; Exception 18. Preservation of Verbatim Recording of Court Proceedings 19. Lost Records; Method of Supplying, Substitution of Copies; Hearing if Corrections Denied 20. Electronic Filing 21. Local Rules by Superior Court 22. [Reserved] II. PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS Rule 23. Commencement of Action 24. Pleadings Allowed 25. Family Law Cover Sheet 26. Additional Filings 27. Service on the Opposing Party or Additional Parties 28. Mandatory Responsive Filings 29. General Rules of Pleading 30. Form of Pleading 31. Signing of Pleadings 32. Defenses and Objections; When and How Presented; By Pleading or Motion; Motion for Judgment on Pleadings 33. Counterclaims; Third Party Practice 1 34. Amended and Supplemental Pleadings 35. Family Law Motion Practice III. PARTIES Rule 36. Real Party in Interest 37. Substitution of Parties 38. Process on Behalf of and Against Persons Not Parties 39. Proof of Authority by Attorney for Defendant Not Personally Served IV. SERVICE OF PROCESS Rule 40. Process 41. Service of Process within Arizona 42. Service of Process Outside of State 43.
    [Show full text]
  • 7Th Edition (2018)
    Issue 7 2018 The views expressed by the contributors are not necessarily those of the Editorial or Honorary Board of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this journal is correct, the Editors and the authors cannot accept any responsibility for any errors or omissions, or for any consequences resulting therefrom. © 2018 Individual authors OXFORD UNIVERSITY 2 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL -The- 7th Editorial Board of the Oxford University Undergraduate Law Journal 2017-2018 Editors-in-Chief Jean Goh Govind Shankar St Peter’s College St John’s College Editors Anna Yamaoka-Enkerlin Kenneth Chong Pembroke College Magdalen College Secretary Daisy Brown St Peter’s College Senior Associate Editors Sam Cadd Tom Pausey Hertford College St Catherine’s College Associate Editors Ming Mak Amelia Tai Worcester College Oriel College Oskar Sherry Jonathan Windsor Lady Margaret Hall College Balliol College Abigail Preston Joseph Bunting Mansfield College Magdalen College Tim Koch Jesus College OXFORD UNIVERSITY 3 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL -The- Honorary Board Sir Nicolas Bratza Professor Michael Bridge Donald Findlay QC Professor Christopher Forsyth Ian Gatt QC The Right Hon the Lord Judge The Right Hon the Lord Kerr of Tonaghmore Michael Mansfield QC The Right Hon the Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury The Right Hon the Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers Lord Pannick QC His Honour Judge Gordon Risius CB Dinah Rose QC Sir Konrad Schiemann The Right Hon the Lord Wilson of Culworth OXFORD UNIVERSITY 4 UNDERGRADUATE LAW JOURNAL CONTENTS I. Foreword Dr Paul Yowell, Fellow of Oriel College and Associate Professor in the 6 Oxford Faculty of Law II.
    [Show full text]