CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA TEBEILA INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP, EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE, AND TRAINING
|
|
- Allen Carr
- 2 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: Case CCT 155/14 TEBEILA INSTITUTE OF LEADERSHIP, EDUCATION, GOVERNANCE, AND TRAINING Applicant and LIMPOPO COLLEGE OF NURSING MEMBER OF THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, LIMPOPO PROVINCE First Respondent Second Respondent Neutral citation: Tebeila Institute of Leadership Education, Governance and Training v Limpopo College of Nursing and Another [2015] ZACC 4 Coram: Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Froneman J, Jappie AJ, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Molemela AJ, Nkabinde J, Theron AJ, and Tshiqi AJ Judgment: The Court Decided on: 26 February 2015 Summary: Appeal against costs order general costs rule in constitutional litigation avoid deterring parties from pursuing constitutional claims exceptional circumstances warranting intervention costs order set aside
2 ORDER 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal succeeds with costs. 3. The costs order of the High Court is set aside. 4. The respondents must pay the applicant s costs in the High Court. JUDGMENT THE COURT [1] At issue is a costs order granted by the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division (functioning as Limpopo Division, Polokwane) (High Court) more particularly, the part of it that deprived the applicant of the costs it incurred when it successfully challenged an exclusion the first respondent applied when admitting students. The applicant, a non-governmental educational institution in a rural area of Limpopo Province, brought a constitutional challenge to the admissions policy of the first respondent, the Limpopo College of Nursing (College). The policy required aspiring nursing students to have obtained a school-leaving certificate not more than three years ago. This, the applicant complained, irrationally and unfairly excluded many worthy prospective students who had left school more than three years previously. [2] The High Court (Makgoba J) agreed. It condemned as insufficient the justification the College and the second respondent, the Member of the Executive Council for the Department of Health, Limpopo Province (MEC), attempted to proffer 2
3 in defence of the bar. The Court found it unwarrantable under both section 9(1) and section 9(3) of the Bill of Rights, and ruled it constitutionally invalid. [3] So the applicant succeeded, ringingly. But then came the glitch. Instead of granting the applicant its costs, the High Court s order specified that [e]ach party shall pay its own costs. 1 This deprived the applicant of the costs it had to incur to overturn the ban. In delivering its reasons, the High Court explained its ruling thus: The case before me does not warrant an award of costs against the unsuccessful party in that the issues raised in this matter are of a constitutional nature. [4] This was very plainly a mistake. The applicant was entitled to its costs. The general principle in constitutional litigation was laid down in Biowatch. 2 In that case, this Court found that the general rule in constitutional litigation between a private party and the state is that if the private party is successful, it should have its costs paid by the state, while, if unsuccessful, each party should pay its own costs. 3 [5] What is more, in Biowatch the Court held that, when departing from the general rule, a court should set out reasons that are carefully articulated and convincing. This, it noted, would not only be of assistance to an appellate court, but would also enable the party concerned and other potential litigants to know exactly what had been done wrongly, and what should be avoided in the future. 4 [6] In saying this, the Court had in mind the case before it, where a member of the public, litigating to protect constitutional rights, was unjustly saddled with an adverse costs award, but what it said applies equally to other deviations from the general rule. 1 The applicant brought its application on an urgent basis. The High Court granted the applicant the substantive order it sought, together with the impugned costs order, on 27 August The High Court furnished the reasons for the order on 8 September Biowatch Trust v Registrar Genetic Resources and Others [2009] ZACC 14; 2009 (6) SA 232 (CC); 2009 (10) BCLR 1014 (CC) (Biowatch). 3 Id at para Id at para 25. 3
4 Courts must carefully and convincingly articulate why they deprive members of the public of their costs when they successfully challenge constitutional injustices. [7] The Court in Biowatch set out the rationale for ruling that successful private litigants get their costs when litigating against organs of state, but are not saddled with the state s costs when losing. 5 It explained that adverse costs orders have a chilling effect on parties seeking to assert constitutional rights. But it noted further implications, observing that [m]eritorious claims might not be proceeded with because of a fear that failure could lead to financially ruinous consequences. 6 And it added, presciently for the arguments in this case, that [s]imilarly, people might be deterred from pursuing constitutional claims because of a concern that even if they succeed they will be deprived of their costs because of some inadvertent procedural or technical lapse. [8] The applicant invokes precisely this point. It says that its right of access to courts, and that of other litigants, is impeded, because the costs order here will make it reluctant to litigate against the state where this is necessary, because of the risk of not being indemnified for its costs even when it succeeds. 5 The full passage in the Biowatch judgment at para 23 reads: 6 Id. The rationale for this general rule is three-fold. In the first place it diminishes the chilling effect that adverse costs orders would have on parties seeking to assert constitutional rights. Constitutional litigation frequently goes through many courts and the costs involved can be high. Meritorious claims might not be proceeded with because of a fear that failure could lead to financially ruinous consequences. Similarly, people might be deterred from pursuing constitutional claims because of a concern that even if they succeed they will be deprived of their costs because of some inadvertent procedural or technical lapse. Secondly, constitutional litigation, whatever the outcome, might ordinarily bear not only on the interests of the particular litigants involved, but also on the rights of all those in similar situations. Indeed, each constitutional case that is heard enriches the general body of constitutional jurisprudence and adds texture to what it means to be living in a constitutional democracy. Thirdly, it is the State that bears primary responsibility for ensuring that both the law and State conduct are consistent with the Constitution. If there should be a genuine, non-frivolous challenge to the constitutionality of a law or of State conduct, it is appropriate that the State should bear the costs if the challenge is good, but if it is not, then the losing non-state litigant should be shielded from the costs consequences of failure. In this way responsibility for ensuring that the law and State conduct are constitutional is placed at the correct door. (Footnote omitted.) 4
5 [9] And, indeed, the applicant s fears have an added edge here as there was no lapse, inadvertent, procedural or technical, that could have justified depriving it of its costs. The applicant appears to have conducted its case impeccably. So there was no basis at all for departing from the general rule. [10] The costs order granted by the High Court seems to have been a mere slip. In an inadvertent transposition of logic, the Court appears to have taken the rule that protects unsuccessful constitutional applicants from adverse costs orders, and applied it for the benefit of state institutions here by depriving the applicant of the favourable costs award to which it is entitled. [11] In these circumstances, the applicant asks this Court to overturn the costs order. This Court issued directions on 3 December 2014 requiring the parties to submit short argument on whether it is in the interests of justice to approach this Court directly, instead of the Full Court 7 of the High Court and the Supreme Court of Appeal, and on the merits of the challenge to the costs order. [12] The respondents oppose. They contend that the High Court did not exercise its discretion capriciously or incorrectly. But that is wrong. In this case, the High Court did not elaborate its reasoning for depriving the applicant of its costs. Its order was plainly an inadvertent misapplication of the Biowatch logic. That constituted a clear misdirection. If it is shown that a court exercised its discretion based on incorrect principles of law, an appeal court may interfere with that exercise of discretion. 8 [13] The more difficult question which the respondents fail to address is whether this Court should use its clout to intervene and fix the mistake. That involves difficult issues of institutional power, energy and time. Few appellate courts countenance 7 A Full Court is the statutory term for a bench of three High Court judges sitting as an appeal court of that Division. See sections 1 and 16(1)(a)(i) of the Superior Courts Act, 10 of 2013 and section 20(2)(a) of the repealed Superior Courts Act, 59 of See Giddey N.O. v JC Barnard and Partners [2006] ZACC 13; 2007 (5) SA 525 (CC); 2007 (2) BCLR 125 (CC) at para 19. 5
6 appeals on costs alone, and indeed the statute regulating appeals from a High Court to a Full Court or the Supreme Court of Appeal has long provided that an appeal may be dismissed on the sole ground that the decision sought will have no practical effect or result and that, save under exceptional circumstances, the question whether there would be any practical effect or result must be determined without reference to any consideration of costs. 9 The practical impact of this provision is that appeals on costs alone are allowed very rarely indeed. 10 [14] All this makes this Court reluctant to correct the mistake here. And we have given careful consideration to the alternative. This is to dismiss the application and send the applicant back to the High Court, in order to seek its leave to appeal against the costs order to the Full Court. But, as shown above, that course may fail on the very point that appeals against costs orders alone are not countenanced. So, for the applicant, that would likely be a dead end. [15] There are considerations militating in the applicant s favour in this Court. The subject of the challenge it litigated, namely access to further education, was plainly constitutional. 11 And those on whose behalf it brought the challenge students in the 9 Section 16 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, entitled Appeals generally, provides: (1) Subject to section 15(1), the Constitution and any other law... (2) (a) (i) When at the hearing of an appeal the issues are of such a nature that the decision sought will have no practical effect or result, the appeal may be dismissed on this ground alone. (ii) Save under exceptional circumstances, the question whether the decision would have no practical effect or result is to be determined without reference to any consideration of costs. This provision was almost identically contained in section 21A(1) and (3) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of This Court s decision in Coetzee v National Commissioner of Police and Another [2013] ZACC 29; 2013 (11) BCLR 1227 (CC) (Coetzee) provides an illustration. The Court refused leave to appeal against an adverse costs award of the Supreme Court of Appeal because the issue at stake was not constitutional. The challenge to the Supreme Court of Appeal s findings was largely factual. To the same effect is this Court s decision in Justice Alliance of South Africa v Minister for Safety and Security and Others [2013] ZACC 12; 2013 (7) BCLR 785 (CC), where this Court refused to set aside adverse costs awards against the applicant on the basis that the challenge it brought was not based on any infringement of a fundamental right in the Constitution (see para 15). 11 In this respect, the present case differs from Coetzee id and is more like Stainbank v South African Apartheid Museum at Freedom Park and Another [2011] ZACC 20; 2011 (10) BCLR 1058 (CC) (Stainbank). That matter involved a recusation challenge. This Court plainly had constitutional jurisdiction. While rejecting the 6
7 country s rural areas are entitled to particular respect for their social and constitutional entitlements. [16] Moreover, there are exceptional circumstances warranting this Court s intervention. 12 First, this is the first time this Court has been confronted with a case where a litigant who has successfully vindicated constitutional rights has been deprived of its costs. The case therefore makes a singular claim for intervention. [17] Second, it is nearly six years since this Court handed down Biowatch. The applicant s plaint affords this Court a useful opportunity to restate the principles laid down in Biowatch and to emphasise the rationale behind them. In particular, the case serves as a reminder to judicial officers handing down costs orders that litigants successfully asserting their constitutional rights against state institutions should get their costs unless there are carefully articulated and convincing reasons to deprive them of those costs. [18] For these reasons, the interests of justice favour granting the applicant leave to appeal. They also favour intervening to set aside the costs award. There will be a consonant order. Order 1. Leave to appeal is granted. 2. The appeal succeeds with costs. 3. The costs order of the High Court is set aside. 4. The respondents must pay the applicant s costs in the High Court. constitutional challenge, the Court held that the applicant s related complaint, about the High Court s costs order, was an issue connected with a constitutional issue, which gave it jurisdiction (see para 27). 12 See Stainbank id at para 29 and Biowatch above n 2 at para 11. 7
8 For the Applicant: For the Respondents: S Tebeile and K Mokwena instructed by Obi Matlaila Attorneys. C Brand SC and O Mudau instructed by State Attorney, Polokwane.
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA RONALD BOBROFF & PARTNERS INC JUANNE ELIZE DE LA GUERRE SOUTH AFRICAN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Cases CCT 122/13 and CCT 123/13 In the matter between: RONALD BOBROFF & PARTNERS INC Applicant and JUANNE ELIZE DE LA GUERRE Respondent And in the matter between: SOUTH
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 20794/2014 In the matter between: ESTEE BUNTON PIETER BUNTON FIRST APPELLANT SECOND APPELLANT and W A COETZEE AUTO & GENERAL
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 491/97
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No: 491/97 In the matter of: SOUTH AFRICAN CLOTHING INDUSTRIES (PTY) LTD t/a PRESTIGE LINGERIE Appellant and THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE
SFS 2002:599 Group Proceedings Act Introductory provisions Group action Section 1 Group proceedings Section 2
1 Swedish Code of Statutes SFS 2002:599 issued by the printers in June 2002 Group Proceedings Act issued on 30 May 2002. The following is enacted in accordance with a decision1 by the Swedish Riksdag.
The LSSA contended the Act and regulations seriously prejudiced thousands of road accident victims.
MEDIA REPORTS ON THE PROGRESS OF THE CHALLENGE BY THE LAW SOCIETY AND OTHERS ON THE ROAD ACCIDENT FUND AMENDMENT ACT 2 MARCH 2010 New Road Accident Fund legislation places victims of road accidents at
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Submitted On Briefs November 18, 2009 JOE HENRY MOORE v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Tennessee Claims Commission No. 20-101-047 Nancy C. Miller
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE LAND CLAIMS COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Held at RANDBURG on 22 May 2008 before MEER J CASE NO: LCC16/2007 In the matter between: AFRIBLAZE LEISURE (PTY) LTD SUPERSTRIKE INVESTMENTS 123 (PTY) LTD LEOPARD
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Merlo v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 BCSC 1136 Date: 20130625 Docket: S122255 Registry: Vancouver Between: Brought under the Class Proceedings Act,
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
` THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA In the matter between: JUDGMENT Not Reportable Case No: 20157/2014 UTi SOUTH AFRICA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED APPELLANT and TRIPLE OPTION TRADING 29 CC RESPONDENT
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SA
CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION ACCORDING TO FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SA LIMITED T/A WESBANK V COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICES AND ANOTHER; FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF SA LIMITED T/A WESBANK
Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries. Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you
Offering Defense Witnesses to New York Grand Juries By: Mark M. Baker 1 Your client has just been held for the action of the Grand Jury. Although you have a valid defense, you do not want your client to
OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP")
THE TAKEOVER PANEL 2001/15 OFFER BY WPP GROUP PLC ("WPP") FOR TEMPUS GROUP PLC ("TEMPUS") 1. The Takeover Panel met on 31 October to hear an appeal by WPP against the Panel Executive's refusal to allow
Nitschke v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2015] NTSC 50
Nitschke v Medical Board of Australia (No 2) [2015] NTSC 50 PARTIES: NITSCHKE Philip v MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT: JURISDICTION: SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY SUPREME COURT OF
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FIVE B254585
Filed 2/26/15 Vega v. Goradia CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified
STATE OF MICHIGAN MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. Case No. 2012-4691-CH OPINION AND ORDER
STATE OF MICHIGAN MACOMB COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT JOHN E. BUTERBAUGH and CARRIE BUTERBAUGH, Plaintiffs, vs. Case No. 2012-4691-CH SELENE FINANCIAL, LP, JPMORGAN MORTGAGE ACQUISITION CORP., AS TRUSTEE FOR THE
S15F1254. McLENDON v. McLENDON. Following the trial court s denial of her motion for a new trial regarding
297 Ga. 779 FINAL COPY S15F1254. McLENDON v. McLENDON. MELTON, Justice. Following the trial court s denial of her motion for a new trial regarding her divorce from Jason McLendon (Husband), Amanda McLendon
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, IN JOHANNESBURG JUDGMENT CASE NO: JR 1825/12 In the matter between: PUBLIC SERVANTS ASSOCIATION OF SOUTH AFRICA obo DD MALEPE Applicant
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT ANDRE VERNON OOSTHUIZEN
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case no: 258/10 In the matter between: ANDRE VERNON OOSTHUIZEN Appellant and ROAD ACCIDENT FUND Respondent Neutral citation: Oosthuizen v Road Accident
Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Toor v. Harding, 2013 BCSC 1202 Amrit Toor and Intech Engineering Ltd. Date: 20130705 Docket: S125365 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs Thomas
Prof. Dr. Harald Jatzke Judge at the Supreme Tax Court, Munich. Selected Procedural Issues
Prof. Dr. Harald Jatzke Judge at the Supreme Tax Court, Munich Selected Procedural Issues I. Recusal of a judge from a case II. Opinion process III. Expert evidence IV. Sanctions (refusal to admit comments
Pg. 01 French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP
Contents French v Carter Lemon Camerons LLP 1 Excelerate Technology Limited v Cumberbatch and Others 3 Downing v Peterborough and Stamford Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust 5 Yeo v Times Newspapers Limited
[1] This is a review of an order made by the taxing master (master) on the 18 June 2014, made in terms of Rule 48 of the Uniform Rules of the court.
FREE STATE HIGH COURT, BLOEMFONTEIN REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Case No. : 877/2014 In matter between: SIEGREFRIED VAN BILJON Plaintiff And SUSARA RAUTENBACH Defendant REVIEW JUDGMENT JUDGMENT BY: I. MOTLOUNG,
United States Court of Appeals
USCA Case #12-5117 Document #1394950 Filed: 09/18/2012 Page 1 of 5 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT No. 12-5117 September Term, 2012 FILED ON: SEPTEMBER 18, 2012 CENTER
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 273/09 ABERDEEN INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED Appellant and SIMMER AND JACK MINES LTD Respondent Neutral citation: Aberdeen International Incorporated
LABOUR COURTS AND CCMA RULES
Page 1 of 9 LABOUR COURTS AND CCMA RULES LABOUR APPEAL COURT RULES RULES REGULATING THE CONDUCT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT Act Published under GN 1666 of 14 October 1996 [with effect
litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients
litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients litigating in Canada: a brief guide for U.S. clients executive summary Despite the great deal the United States and Canada share in common, in many
Arizona Court Rules Arbitration Unconscionable
Arizona Court Rules Arbitration Unconscionable By Judge Bruce E. Meyerson (Ret.) 1 Although the United States Supreme Court in Green Tree Fin. Corp. Alabama v. Randolph, 2 held, in the context of a contract
Supreme Court Judgment in Coventry and Ors v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50
Alerter 24 th July 2015 Supreme Court Judgment in Coventry and Ors v Lawrence and another [2015] UKSC 50 The Supreme Court has handed down its Judgment in Coventry v Lawrence in which it considered the
www.costsbarrister.co.uk NIHL and success fees Andrew Hogan Barrister at law 1
www.costsbarrister.co.uk NIHL and success fees Andrew Hogan Barrister at law 1 On 13 th March 2015 at 4pm, Mr Justice Phillips handed down judgment in conjoined cases, Dalton and others.v.british Telecommunications
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE MICHAEL N. LOPEZ, No. 606, 2013 Defendant Below- Appellant, Court Below: Superior Court v. of the State of Delaware, in and for Sussex County STATE OF DELAWARE,
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT
IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT OF SWAZILAND JUDGEMENT CASE NO. 193/2010 In the matter between:- PATRICK NGWENYA APPLICANT AND AUDITOR GENERAL THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 ST RESPONDENT 2 ND RESPONDENT In re: PATRICK
ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND JUSTICE ISSUES PAPER LEGAL REPRESENTATION AND JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT IN SMALL CLAIMS June 2013 Legal Policy Division Department of the Attorney-General and Justice
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT EVEREADY (PTY) LIMITED THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not reportable Case No: 195/11 EVEREADY (PTY) LIMITED Appellant and THE COMMISSIONER FOR THE SOUTH AFRICAN REVENUE SERVICE Respondent
No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.).
Supreme Court No. 2007-310-Appeal. (PC 06-3123) Cathy Lee Barrette : v. : Vincent John Yakavonis, M.D. : Present: Goldberg, Acting C.J., Flaherty, Suttell, Robinson, JJ., and Williams, C.J. (ret.). O P
LAC CASE NO: JA 38/08 SANLAM LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED JUDGMENT. [1] Leave to appeal having been granted by the Labour Court, this is an
IN THE LABOUR APPEAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (HELD AT JOHANNESBURG) LAC CASE NO: JA 38/08 In the matter between SANLAM LIFE INSURANCE LIMITED APPELLANT And THE COMMISSION FOR CONCILIATION, MEDIATION AND
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Case no: 564/09 ROGER HUGH MARGO SHERIFF FOR THE DISTRICT OF RANDBURG First Appellant Second Appellant and TONY RICKY GARDNER
Civil Suits: The Process
Jurisdictional Limits The justice courts have exclusive jurisdiction or the authority to hear all civil actions when the amount involved, exclusive of interest, costs and awarded attorney fees when authorized
2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U. No. 1-14-1179 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141179-U THIRD DIVISION May 20, 2015 No. 1-14-1179 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA. IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) Case no:17335/2012
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (NORTH GAUTENG, PRETORIA) Case no:17335/2012 In the matter between: REUNERT LIMITED APPLICANT (1) REPORTABLE: Y E S / (2) O F INTEREST TO OTHER
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION
Coniglio et al v. Bank of America, N.A. Doc. 31 NELSON CONIGLIO and JOYCE CONIGLIO, husband and wife Plaintiff, IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION v.
DENEYS REITZ CASE LAW UPDATE November 2008
DENEYS REITZ CASE LAW UPDATE November 2008 SUBROGATION: CAN INSURER SUE IN ITS OWN NAME WITHOUT CESSION? 1. Rand Mutual Assurance Co Ltd v Road Accident Fund, a Supreme Court of Appeal judgment delivered
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA. HAFIZA ISMAIL AMOD (born PEER) MULTILATERAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS FUND JUDGMENT
CONSTITUTIONAL COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA Case CCT 4/98 HAFIZA ISMAIL AMOD (born PEER) Applicant versus MULTILATERAL MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS FUND Respondent Heard on : 21 May 1998 Decided on : 27 August 1998
MAXIMILLIAN SCHREMS. -and- DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER Respondent
Between:- THE HIGH COURT JUDICIAL REVIEW Record No.: 2013/765 JR MAXIMILLIAN SCHREMS Applicant -and- DATA PROTECTION COMMISSIONER Respondent OUTLINE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF
FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION
FEE SHIFTING IN PATENT LITIGATION Sughrue Mion, PLLC Abraham J. Rosner May 2014 I. BACKGROUND In the U.S., each party to litigation ordinarily pays its own attorney fees regardless of the outcome (called
http://curia.eu.int/jurisp/cgi-bin/gettext.pl?lang=en&num=79948890t19030275&doc...
Page 1 of 7 IMPORTANT LEGAL NOTICE - The information on this site is subject to a disclaimer and a copyright notice. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Third Chamber) 9 November 2005 (*) (Community
S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: November 19, 2012 S12F1507. RYMUZA v. RYMUZA. NAHMIAS, Justice. On January 13, 2012, the trial court entered a final judgment in the divorce action filed by appellee
IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015. Appeal No. 2014AP1151 DISTRICT I MICHAEL L. ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED July 14, 2015 Diane M. Fremgen Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear in the
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-60087 Document: 00512938717 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/18/2015 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED February 18, 2015 SUPERIOR
Kelley v. Wegmans Food Market
2004 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-26-2004 Kelley v. Wegmans Food Market Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 03-2741 Follow
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION ORDER
Case 4:02-cv-00066-HL Document 136 Filed 02/10/09 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : ex rel. GLENN F. NICHOLS
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE December 02, 2014 Session CONNIE REDMOND v. WALMART STORES, INC., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 13C3247 Joseph P. Binkley,
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION
case 1:11-cv-00399-JTM-RBC document 35 filed 11/29/12 page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA FORT WAYNE DIVISION CINDY GOLDEN, Plaintiff, v. No. 1:11 CV 399 STATE FARM MUTUAL
Texas Appeals Court Finds Mental Health Judge Failed to Follow Basic Principle of Legal Procedure
Texas Appeals Court Finds Mental Health Judge Failed to Follow Basic Principle of Legal Procedure By Craig A. Conway, J.D., LL.M. (Health Law) caconway@central.uh.edu A Texas appeals court ruled last month
JUDGMENT. SA MOHAIR BROKERS LTD Appellant
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT Case No: 602/10 In the matter between: SA MOHAIR BROKERS LTD Appellant and DOUGLAS CHRISTOPHER LOUW First Respondent ANDRE HERMANN DANKWERTS Second
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
Andrew Thurlow & Suzanne Innocenzi v The Architect Studio Pty Ltd [2008] NTMC 005 THE ARCHITECT STUDIO PTY LTD
CITATION: PARTIES: Andrew Thurlow & Suzanne Innocenzi v The Architect Studio Pty Ltd [2008] NTMC 005 ANDREW THURLOW SUZANNE INNOCENZI v THE ARCHITECT STUDIO PTY LTD TITLE OF COURT: JURISDICTION: Local
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 13-3297. THOMAS I. GAGE, Appellant
Case: 13-3297 Document: 003111509247 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/16/2014 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 13-3297 THOMAS I. GAGE, Appellant v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., AS; MR. LUKE ANDERSEN;
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,491. KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS No. 99,491 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellant, v. JILL POWELL, Appellee. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT 1. Under the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement
JUDGMENT. From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago. before. Lord Neuberger Lord Mance Lord Clarke Lord Sumption Lord Reed
[2015] UKPC 37 Privy Council Appeal No 0031 of 2014 and 0032 of 2014 JUDGMENT NH International (Caribbean) Limited (Appellant) v National Insurance Property Development Company Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad
No. 05-10-01016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS. FRED ANDERSON, Appellant. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee
No. 05-10-01016-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT DALLAS FRED ANDERSON, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from Criminal District Court No. 5 of Dallas County,
President s Guidance Bulletin number 2 Case management decisions and appeals therefrom. December 2010.
President s Guidance Bulletin number 2 Case management decisions and appeals therefrom December 2010. Introduction If my first Guidance (regarding split-hearings, issued in May 2010 and published in the
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LEANNA WEISSMANN Lawrenceburg, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: DOUGLAS R. DENMURE Aurora, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA IN RE: THE MARRIAGE OF GLEN
Consultation Paper for Civil Rule Reform
COURT OF APPEAL Consultation Paper for Civil Rule Reform 1. Introduction... 1 2. Reorganization of the Act and Rules... 2 3. Leave to Appeal... 2 4. Filings, Document Content and Deadlines... 3 5. Vexatious
JAMAICA THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN GODFREY THOMPSON APPELLANT
[2014] JMCA Civ 37 JAMAICA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SUPREME COURT CIVIL APPEAL NO 41/2007 BEFORE: THE HON MR JUSTICE MORRISON JA THE HON MR JUSTICE BROOKS JA THE HON MS JUSTICE LAWRENCE-BESWICK JA (AG) BETWEEN
2013 IL App (1st) 121843
2013 IL App (1st) 121843 No. 1-12-1843 SECOND DIVISION January 22, 2013 MEGAN KLEHR, ) Appeal from the ) Circuit Court of Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Cook County ) v. ) 11 CH 34842 ) ILLINOIS FARMERS INSURANCE
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS
GLOSSARY OF SELECTED LEGAL TERMS Sources: US Courts : http://www.uscourts.gov/library/glossary.html New York State Unified Court System: http://www.nycourts.gov/lawlibraries/glossary.shtml Acquittal A
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA Lombard Insurance Co Ltd v City of Cape Town [2007] JOL 20661 (SCA) Issue Order CASE NO: 441/06 Reportable In the matter between: LOMBARD INSURANCE COMPANY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. JASON WILLIAM CICHETTI Appellant No. 1465 MDA 2012 Appeal from
THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA Reportable Of interest to other judges THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA PORT ELIZABETH JUDGMENT Case no: P01/12 In the matter between: R ABDULLAH Applicant and KOUGA MUNICIPALITY
NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
NO. 29435 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I MELANIO G. FERNANDO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JUDY K. FERNANDO, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice NORTHBROOK PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
Present: Carrico, C.J., Compton, Stephenson, Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, JJ., and Whiting, Senior Justice VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY OPINION BY JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, v. Record No. 951919 September
OREGON JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Appellate Court Records Section, 503-986-5555
OREGON JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Appellate Court Records Section, 503-986-5555 INFORMATION ON FILING A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW (WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD) In response to your request, we have enclosed
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark
Executive summary and overview of the national report for Denmark Section I Summary of findings There is no special legislation concerning damages for breach of EC or national competition law in Denmark,
Under the terms of Article 161c of the Constitution, the Assembly of the Republic hereby decrees the following: Chapter I GENERAL PROVISIONS
LAW GOVERNING THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF PETITION Note: Text of Law no. 43/90, as published in Series I of Diário da República no. 184 dated 10 August 1990, and amended by Laws nos. 6/93, 15/2003 and
Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: MAY 14, 2010; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2009-CA-000282-MR AND NO. 2009-CA-000334-MR BRIAN G. SULLIVAN APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE APPEAL AND CROSS-APPEAL
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT
THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA JUDGMENT In the matter between: Not Reportable Case No: 20278/14 THE ISIBAYA FUND APPELLANT and ERNUSTUS JACOBUS VISSER VAUGHN COETZEE FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND
STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS
STANDARD 3.5 ON ASSISTANCE TO PRO SE LITIGANTS STANDARD In appropriate circumstances, a provider may offer pro se litigants assistance or limited representation at various stages of proceedings. COMMENTARY
ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
REL: 6/30/11 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Respondent, APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO STATE OF ARIZONA, Petitioner/Appellant, HON. CHARLES SHIPMAN, Judge of the Green Valley Justice Court, in and of the County of Pima, v. and THOMAS
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth
WESTERN AUSTRALIAN FEDERATION OF SEXUAL ASSAULT SERVICES (WAFSAS) FORUM 4 October 2005, Perth Criminal Injuries Compensation By Helen Porter, Office of Criminal Injuries Compensation. INTRODUCTION In this
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as Bank of Am. v. Kuchta, 2012-Ohio-5562.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF MEDINA ) BANK OF AMERICA Appellee C.A. No. 12CA0025-M v. GEORGE M. KUCHTA,
The court held a hearing on March 27, 2008 to consider the application by
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION Do.cket Nos. cv-70-10..d. AP-06-56 ' I ',, '.', ',1-- I I. C\ J. ELIZABETH NIITCHELL, et al., v. Plaintiffs, PORTLAND FINE FURNITURE and DESIGN
INLAND REVENUE BOARD OF REVIEW DECISIONS. Case No. D23/96
Case No. D23/96 Profits tax royalties trade mark used in Hong Kong section 15(1)(b) section 70A of the Inland Revenue Ordinance. Panel: William Turnbull (chairman), Christopher Chan Cheuk and Yu Yui Chiu.
What Trustees Should Know About Florida s New Attorneys Fee Statute. By David P. Hathaway and David J. Akins. Introduction
What Trustees Should Know About Florida s New Attorneys Fee Statute By David P. Hathaway and David J. Akins Introduction More and more lawsuits are filed in Florida alleging that the trustee of a trust
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108
IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2015 WY 108 APRIL TERM, A.D. 2015 August 17, 2015 CHESTER LOYDE BIRD, Appellant (Defendant), v. S-15-0059 THE STATE OF WYOMING, Appellee (Plaintiff). Representing
STEPHEN S. EDWARDS, individually and as Trustee of the Super Trust Fund, u/t/d June 15, 2001, Plaintiff/Appellant,
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STEPHEN
IN THE MALAWI SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL AT BLANTYRE MS CA CIVIL APPEAL NO, 1 OF (Being High court Civil Cause No. 889 of 1999) BETWEEN:
IN THE MALAWI SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL AT BLANTYRE MS CA CIVIL APPEAL NO, 1 OF 2000 (Being High court Civil Cause No. 889 of 1999) BETWEEN: AIR MALAWI LIMITED......APPELLANT - and - THE OMBUDSMAN... RESPONDENT
MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (CHAPTER 179, SECTION 254) MERCHANT SHIPPING (SHIPPING CASUALTIES, APPEALS AND REHEARINGS) RULES
Arrangement of Provisions MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (CHAPTER 179, SECTION 254) MERCHANT SHIPPING (SHIPPING CASUALTIES, APPEALS AND REHEARINGS) RULES [23 December 1910] 1 Citation. 2 Definitions. 3 Conduct
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 116/09 [2010] NZSC 109 MATTHEW JOHN BIRCHLER NEW ZEALAND POLICE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND SC 116/09 [2010] NZSC 109 MATTHEW JOHN BIRCHLER v NEW ZEALAND POLICE Hearing: 11 August 2010 Court: Counsel: Elias CJ, Blanchard, Tipping, McGrath and William Young
FRAUD RELIANCE FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET THEORY MAY NOT SATISFY RELIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CLAIMS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD
FRAUD RELIANCE FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET THEORY MAY NOT SATISFY RELIANCE REQUIREMENT IN CLAIMS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD OR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION Kaufman v. I-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94, 754 A.2d 1188 (2000). The
No. 3 09 0033 THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009
No. 3 09 0033 Filed December 16, 2009 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2009 KEPPLE AND COMPANY, INC., ) Appeal from the Circuit Court an Illinois Corporation, ) of the 10th Judicial
NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 November 2010. Appeal by Respondents from orders entered 14 September 2009 by
NO. COA10-193 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 November 2010 CARL B. KINGSTON, Petitioner, v. Rockingham County No. 09 CVS 1286 LYON CONSTRUCTION, INC., and PMA INSURANCE GROUP, Respondents. Appeal
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 K.M.W. IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA v. C.S. Appellant No. 85 MDA 2015 Appeal from the Order Entered December 16, 2014 In the Court of
CASE LAW UPDATE: AN HISTORIC WIN FOR WORKERS' RIGHTS. The Supreme Court Of Canada Releases New Labour Trilogy
January 30, 2015 CASE LAW UPDATE: AN HISTORIC WIN FOR WORKERS' RIGHTS The Supreme Court Of Canada Releases New Labour Trilogy In an exciting start to 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada has released three
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: BRIANE M. HOUSE House Reynolds & Faust, LLP Carmel, Indiana ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: CHRISTOPHER M. MANHART Bowman Heintz Boscia & Vician, P.C. Merrillville, Indiana
SHORT GUIDE STRATEGIC LITIGATION
SHORT GUIDE STRATEGIC LITIGATION AND ITS ROLE IN PROMOTING AND PROTECTING HUMAN RIGHTS Ben Schokman, Daniel Creasey, Patrick Mohen DLA Piper Type: Published: Last Updated: Keywords: Legal Guide July 2012
The Truth About CPLR Article 16
The DelliCarpini Law Firm Melville Law Center 877.917.9560 225 Old Country Road fax 631.923.1079 Melville, NY 11747 www.dellicarpinilaw.com John M. DelliCarpini Christopher J. DelliCarpini (admitted in