▾

External sources (not reviewed)

The rate of successful applications indicates some degree of self-selection, where people who would not be eligible for legal aid do not attempt to apply for legal aid.

[...] contingency fee litigators, for licensing [...] [...]

The Committee recommends that in its next periodic report the State party gives fuller details regarding alleged cases of maltreatments brought against healthcare institutions and physicians in court proceedings, showing how successful such proceedings have been and the figures per year dealt with during the reporting cycle.

Significant time may be expended in resolving a matter informally or helping the staff member understand that he or she is unlikely to succeed in a formal claim.

In this way, the registration provides objective information to third parties dealing with the grantor’s assets (such as prospective secured creditors, buyers, judgement creditors and the insolvency representative of the grantor) and thus enables the grantor to sell or encumber (or further encumber) its assets.

Since October 2005, the 6-year-long patent infringement lawsuit between Shanghai Hongyuan and OSRAM ended up with Hongyuan’s wining judged by Higher People’s Court of Shanghai Municipality and Higher People’s Court of Beijing Municipality after several rounds of litigation procedures of No. 2 Medium People’s Court of Shanghai, Higher People’s Court of Beijing Municipality, State Intellectual Property Office, No.1 Medium People’s Court of Beijing and Higher People’s Court of Beijing Municipality.

...] Finally, cases in which non-citizens contest expulsion based on a claim of illness and lack of facilities in the country of origin are likely to succeed only under special circumstances.

(a) Clear statistics on the cases received and disposed of during the period by both Tribunals, including information, by category, on whether the judgements rendered found for the applicant or for the respondent and on the administrative issues involved

Failure to register a notice or otherwise make a security right effective against third parties, at all or in time, means that the secured creditor is effectively demoted to the status of an unsecured creditor as against competing claimants, including the grantor’s judgement creditors and insolvency representative.

[...] aid because her appeals had no chance [...] [...]

However, if an unsecured creditor obtained a judgement against the grantor and took the steps necessary under the law governing the enforcement of judgements to acquire rights in the encumbered assets before the security right became effective against third parties, the right of the judgement creditor has priority (see recommendation 84).

In the first case, the Court, “noting that it recognized that Law 2/93/M is inappropriate in its omission regarding the exercise of rights that may conflict with each other, as it is the case with the intention of holding different events or other activities in the same place, an issue that must be resolved by law, specifically setting out basic principles to be complied with such use, in terms appropriate and proportionate to achieve the objectives and assigning responsibility to specific agencies for the purpose”, upheld the appeal, setting aside the disputed administrative decision, and ruled that there is no spatial restriction to meeting and event by reasons of the existence of other meetings or events on the same site.

Of all these reasons, the difficulty of gathering evidence stands out as the most important for respondents.

In a landmark legal victory in Belize in October 2007, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of two Mayan villages, [...] [...]

[...] [...] prevailing parties in litigation, or inclusion [...] [...]

It would mean that the Office would not have the standing, which is so necessary for the operation of an adversarial system, to persuade potential litigants against bringing hopeless cases, to negotiate effective resolutions “at the court door” with management, to help staff avoid the technical legal pitfalls in litigation, to provide “equality of arms” for staff within the overall system or to provide the Internal Justice Council with full information, from a claimant’s perspective, as to the functioning of the system.

On the basis that the appeal seemed unlikely to succeed, on 1 November 2005 the Asylum Appeals Commission’s investigating judge refused to order interim measures and set a deadline for payment of the estimated procedural fees.