Wilberforce Chambers’ Post

An important read for all those advising directors and certainly not a straightforward win/loss for either side. Read our summary here.

This case will be of interest to members of the arbitration bar. Ontario's Arbitration Act, 1991, says that an objection must be made "no later than the beginning of the hearing" (s. 17(3)). But does that mean the respondent to an arbitration can engage in the arbitral process for over a year, including by delivering a counterclaim that they refer to the same arbitral tribunal, and then object to jurisdiction one week before the hearing is scheduled to commence? This decision confirms that if a respondent, by their words or conduct, agreed to refer matters in dispute to the arbitratral tribunal, they cannot later object to the tribunal's jurisdiction, as they will be held to have waived any jurisdiction objection they could raise. #arbitration #litigation #jurisdiction

TDCI regulates several hundred thousand Tennesseans in their professions and businesses. These boards, commissions, and programs are empowered to take disciplinary action including revocation of licenses and assessment of civil penalties against license holders found guilty of violating laws governing their professions. Consumers are encouraged to file complaints with our team when they feel they have been the victim of an unfair or deceptive business practice, witness unlicensed activity or see suspected misconduct or other violations of respective law or rules. Follow the link to file a complaint: https://lnkd.in/eC9rTyGN #consumerprotection #tennessee #seesomethingsaysomething

The typical situation in which a defendant is liable for tortious interference with contract is when a defendant prevents a third party from performing its contract with the plaintiff. But a defendant may also be liable for tortious interference when it prevents the plaintiff from performing its contractual obligations with a third party.

Legal Warriors Alert! 🚨 ⚔️ NCLA is making waves in the battle against the ever-expanding #AdministrativeState! Check out this illuminating article from The Epoch Times highlighting our legal team's valiant efforts to rein in bureaucratic overreach and restore accountability. Together, we're fighting for constitutional principles and the rule of law. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gtqsV-94

The High Court has handed down judgment in the case of West Northamptonshire Council v KA v Ord [2024] EWHC 79 (Fam) which is a significant decision that provides important guidance for the use of intermediaries within family proceedings. Samantha Dunn and Clare Meredith of 36 Family, and the representatives on the case, through their exceptional efforts, successfully secured a continuation of a wholesale appointment of the intermediary.    This decision aligns with the unique circumstances of the case and reinforces the importance of a nuanced approach to intermediary appointments. In Mrs. Justice Lieven's view, such appointments should be the exception, considering individual needs, case context, and protection of Article 6 rights. This recent case challenges the standard practice, emphasising that the appointment of intermediaries should be rare and even more exceptional for entire trial use.     More information on this case and subsequent guidance can be found in our upcoming 36 Family Newsletter.    Find out more about Samantha: https://lnkd.in/ew8xTEhX Find out more about Clare: https://lnkd.in/eVWrNx2k   #HighCourtDecision #FamilyLaw #Article6Rights #IntermediariesInLaw

🔥A good reminder to both employers and employees to follow due process.👇🏽 ✅ Institutions such like the CCMA are established to serve the interests of justice and understand that both an employer and employee have rights that must be protected. ✅ CCMA is designed to act as a neutral objective party that will help you discern if a party believes a right has been violated and if so, further assist all parties to settle and or resolve the dispute. ✅ Remember your rights are worth protecting and help is available

Hat tip to Megan Wade for this next post. Generally, the #MassSJC and #MassAppealsCt choose not to review claims, issues or objections that a party did not raise below in a civil case. See e.g. Boss v. Town of Leverett, 484 Mass. 553, 563 (2020). However, appellate courts do have discretionary authority to choose to review those issues, especially if the parties fully brief them. See e.g. Cottam v. CVS Pharmacy, 436 Mass. 316, 320 (2002). What is less established is when courts should exercise that discretion. And, appellate courts may be solicitous on a question of the adequacy of preservation, in accordance with how courts review the substance of papers. See e.g. Goodwin v. Lee Public Schools, 475 Mass. 280 (2016). But that solicitude only goes so far. Cf. Rattigan v. Wile, 445 Mass. 850, 863 (2006) (Failure to plead an affirmative defense forfeits it.) #AppellatePractice #AppellateProcedure #AppellatePracticeandprocedure

See below my note on the DIFC Court of Appeal decision of Sandra Holding Ltd & Ors v Al Saleh & Ors [2023] DIFC CA 003! The decision has potentially interesting ramifications on the issue of jurisdiction in the DIFC Court.

Last month, the #FifthCircuit Court of Appeals joined other Circuits in holding that contacts related to the parties’ underlying dispute should be considered when assessing personal jurisdiction. Meanwhile, the Northern District of Mississippi and the Northern District of Texas offered contrasting perspectives on the impact of a Rule 12 motion on the question of waiver. Read more in the latest edition of #Arbitration in the Fifth by Odean Volker below.