Suchergebnisse

"Even if [the injunction] successfully restrained Google, it would only prohibit its circulation within Hong Kong. The SAR government has to apply an injunction in the U.S.A to take down the videos globally […]"

An issue that may arise for both the plaintiff and defendant in a patent dispute involving pharmaceutical technology concerns the risks associated with selling an allegedly infringing product prior to the dispute being resolved. The plaintiff has the option to seek a preliminary injunction. Deciding whether to grant an injunction involves fact specific analysis. The economic components in such an analysis, which are addressed in this report, are: assessing whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm without an injunction, measuring the balance of harms to the plaintiff and defendant, and evaluating whether the public interest will be served by an injunction.

A Mareva injunction allows a claimant to freeze a defendant's assets pending litigation. The injunction regularly contains provisos for the defendant to be able to meet certain types of regular expenditure and meet legal costs. The defendant in United Mizrahi Bank was being sued for breach of trust: he was an employee of the bank who had allegedly arranged for customers to pay money to entities controlled by him. The bank obtained a Mareva injunction pending the hearing of its claim for the return of the moneys obtained through this breach of trust. The claim was proprietary in nature. The bank could "trace" its ownership of the funds into the hands of the defendant and his associates.
The defendant sought declarations from the English High Court that by using some of the frozen assets to fund his legal expenses in defending the action, he would not be in breach of the Mareva injunction, and that if the claim against him was upheld, the expenditure of money on legal services would not be regarded as a further breach of trust. In relation to the first point, Rattee J held that the Mareva injunction contained a specific proviso for legal expenses, and therefore the use of assets for this purpose could not be a breach of the injunction. In relation to the second point, Michael Burton QC was unable to provide reassurance. Although the defendant would not be in breach of the Mareva injunction by using the disputed assets to fund his defence, it was possible that the assets would be found to be the property of the bank. If they passed into new hands - in casu those of the defendant's solicitors - there was a risk that those solicitors might also be made subject to a claim for their return.

491Governments — Change of government — Action by new government to recover property allegedly embezzled by former Head of State — Duty of courts in other States to cooperate in preventing removal of assets from reach of courtsJurisdiction — Territorial — Injunction restraining defendants from dealing with assets — Whether court in one State empowered to grant injunction regarding foreign defendant's dealings with property situated outside State — The law of England

Intro -- Foreword -- Preface -- Table of Statutes -- Table of Statutory Instruments -- Table of Cases -- 1 Powers, rights and procedure -- Powers and restrictions in relation to protests -- At the police station -- 2 Criminal court procedural issues -- First appearance at the magistrates' court -- Disclosure -- Summary trial procedure -- Abuse of process -- Appeals -- 3 Common offences, defences and core principles -- Aggravated trespass -- Assaulting/resisting/obstructing a police officer in the execution of their duty -- Assaults on emergency workers -- Breach of the peace -- Criminal damage -- Failing to comply with orders -- Location-specific offences and byelaws -- Obstruction of the highway -- Public nuisance -- 'Public order' offences -- Watching and besetting -- Miscellaneous offences -- General defences -- Sentencing principles -- Human rights -- 4 Occupations -- What is an occupation? -- Criminal law -- Civil law -- 5 Injunctions -- How do injunctions arise? -- A taxonomy of injunctions -- Giving notice -- Injunctions against unnamed defendants -- Representative proceedings -- Procedure -- When will the court grant an injunction? -- Grounds for injunctions -- The terms of an injunction -- Proportionality agreements -- After the hearing -- Contempt of court -- Penalty -- Legal aid and costs -- Other proceedings -- Conclusion -- 6 Holding the police to account -- How best to challenge the police -- Funding complaints and civil actions against the police -- Complaints against the police -- Civil actions against the police -- Judicial review proceedings -- Annex A Flowcharts -- Annex B Key legislation -- Human Rights Act 1998 -- Public Order Act 1986 -- Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 -- Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 -- Annex C Police (Conduct) Regulations 2020 -- Annex D Useful websites -- Annex E Public protests.

The extent of available pre-judgment asset preservation relief is widely regarded as a unique characteristic of English law and one of the key factors attracting international commercial litigation to the English courts. By taking a novel view of the theoretical foundations of a freezing injunction, this book challenges the long-established view that such an injunction is an in personam form of relief whose sole purpose is to prevent unscrupulous defendants from making themselves judgment-proof. Dr Šaranović combines historical and comparative perspectives to identify several theoretical flaws in the court's jurisdiction to grant this popular form of interim relief. The book demonstrates that the current application of private international law rules in this field leads to inequality among litigants and illegitimate encroachment upon the sovereignty of foreign states. It proposes a range of possible solutions to alleviate concerns about the scope of freezing injunctions both in the domestic and international arena

The extent of available pre-judgment asset preservation relief is widely regarded as a unique characteristic of English law and one of the key factors attracting international commercial litigation to the English courts. By taking a novel view of the theoretical foundations of a freezing injunction, this book challenges the long-established view that such an injunction is an in personam form of relief whose sole purpose is to prevent unscrupulous defendants from making themselves judgment-proof. Dr Šaranović combines historical and comparative perspectives to identify several theoretical flaws in the court's jurisdiction to grant this popular form of interim relief. The book demonstrates that the current application of private international law rules in this field leads to inequality among litigants and illegitimate encroachment upon the sovereignty of foreign states. It proposes a range of possible solutions to alleviate concerns about the scope of freezing injunctions both in the domestic and international arena.

AbstractIncreasingly, facilities that have been assesed a penalty for a violation of an environmental law have sought to reduce the amount of their penalty by agreeing to execute supplemental environmental project (SEPs). A SEP is defined by EPA as an "environmentally beneficial project which a defendant/respondent agrees to undertake in settlement of an enforcement action, but which the defendant/respondent is not otherwise legally required to perform."1 SEPs are used by both the EPA and state regulatory authorities as an enforcement tool that provides affirmative environmental benefits beyond the deterrence and prevention that can be secured through the usual administrative and judicial mechanisms (e.g., penalties and injunctions).

The First Church of Christ Scientist, of Pasadena, has requested an injunction from Judge Weller ofthe Supreme Court 'against the continued enforcement of the ban against public gatherings re-established inthat city on November 26.' The injunction challenges the legality of the closing order claiming that 'it is not a validor lawful ordinance of the commission of the said city of Pasadena, as the legislative body thereof, and it is anattempt by said commission to delegate to, and by said defendant, Stanley P. Black, as Health Officer to usurpfrom said commission the legislative power of the said city of Pasadena.' The defendants mentioned are 'the cityof Pasadena as a corporation, Stanley P. Black, Health Officer; A. L. Hamilton; Allin H. F. Newell; W. F. Crellerand H. M. Salisbury, Commissioners of the city of Pasadena, and W. S. McIntyre, Chief of Police of Pasadena.'Douglas L. Edmonds, an attorney, presented the application to Judge Weller. Judge White still has to give hisdecision on the previous case of Mr. Edmonds but he is said to be in favor of the Scientists and against theordinance. 'G. F. Hiles is president of First Church of Pasadena, and John Nichols Van Patten is first reader. Thechurch building is located on Oakland avenue near Colorado.' ; Newspaper article ; 7

FRANKLIN, BENJAMIN CROMWELL, ADS, Galveston, May 25, 1848. Signed as attorney for defendant in the case of Levi Jones vs. Edward Hall. Four part petition to dissolve an injunction. Franklin who fought at San Jacinto was the first District Judge in the history of Texas. He was a member of the Supreme Court of the Republic and a prominent legislator in the Congress. The Jones vs. Hall case was one of the most celebrated land trials in legal history. Franklin County was named in his honor. 2pp.