JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 23rd May 2007
|
|
- Jessie Stevens
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Benichou v. Mauritius Commercial Bank (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 36 (23 May 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 35 of 2005 Jacques Benichou Mauritius Commercial Bank v. Appellant Respondent FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF MAURITIUS JUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL Delivered the 23rd May Present at the hearing:- Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Hope of Craighead Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe Baroness Hale of Richmond Lord Carswell [Delivered by Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe] 1. This appeal is concerned with three consolidated sets of proceedings for the enforcement of securities granted by the appellant, Mr Jacques Benichou. The creation of these securities and their enforcement raise substantive and procedural issues under the Mauritian Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure, both derived from the Code Napoleon. In such a matter the Board will naturally be very slow to differ from the Supreme Court of Mauritius, which has unparalleled knowledge and experience of the technical issues which arise on this appeal. [2007] UKPC 36
2 2 2. The issues arise in the context of the largest corporate insolvency in the history of Mauritius. The company in question, Woventex Ltd ( Woventex ) was incorporated in Mauritius in It was established as an ambitious joint venture for a new integrated mill and textile factory in Mauritius. The moving spirit was Mr Benichou. He was managing director (and latterly executive chairman) of Woventex. He was also a shareholder, either directly or through a Panamanian company called Soltex International ( Soltex ). The other principal participants were the Commonwealth Development Corporation ( CDC ), Deutsche Finanzierungsgesellschaft für Beteiligungen in Entwicklungsländern GmbH ( DEG ) and the Mauritius Commercial Bank ( the Bank ). The original plan, set out in a joint venture agreement dated 6 November 1987 ( the JVA ), was that the total cost of the project would be R580m. Mr Benichou was to take up about 56% of the equity capital (initially totalling R215m). CDC and DEG were each to take up about 14% of the equity and put in 30% of the loan capital (initially totalling R365m). The Bank was to take up about 14% of the equity and put in 40 % of the loan capital. 3. The project did not prosper. The detailed facts as to the deterioration of Woventex s financial position, and of relations between the parties, is a complicated and contentious matter, on which no court in Mauritius has yet made findings (there have been some concluded legal proceedings in France, which it will be necessary to return to briefly). The ascertainment of the facts has been complicated by Mr Benichou s having been in contempt of court since June 1994, when he failed to return to Mauritius in obedience to a court order permitting him to leave the Island for one month only. Mr Benichou has not himself made any affidavit, either in these proceedings or in linked proceedings (Woventex Ltd (In Receivership) v Benichou) in which the Board heard an appeal immediately before the hearing of this appeal. Instead he has caused a large number of affidavits to be sworn on his behalf. Some of these resemble pleadings or skeleton arguments rather than factual depositions. Much of their contents has been objected to as inadmissible hearsay, and before the Board leading counsel for Mr Benichou (Mr Hodge Malek QC) accepted that on matters of fact he could rely only on documentary evidence, the Bank s own affidavit evidence, and such of the affidavits on behalf of Mr Benichou as the Bank did not object to; but there has been no formal striking-out of parts of the evidence filed on behalf of Mr Benichou. That is a further and regrettable complication on what is, on any view, a complicated matter. 4. Apart from his shareholding (through Soltex) in Woventex Mr Benichou had numerous other business interests. In particular he had a
3 3 controlling interest in P R Ltd ( PR ), a Mauritian company which owned a hotel. PR is in receivership and is a party, as garnishee, in the first of the appeals. Mr Benichou also had interests in seven other companies ( the second group of garnishees ) which are parties, as garnishees, in the second appeal. The second group of garnishees includes a Mauritian company called Maurigarments Ltd ( Maurigarments ). The garnishee in the third appeal is Mr A K Rajah, who was Mr Benichou s attorney but has ceased to act for him because of a conflict of interest. All the garnishees have submitted to the court and none of them has been represented before the Board. 5. PR, the second group of garnishees and Mr Rajah can conveniently be referred to as garnishees but none of them is an ordinary trade debtor of Mr Benichou. In relation to PR and the second group of garnishees Mr Benichou s interest, which the Bank seeks to attach, was as a shareholder (in particular, Mr Benichou had 2,357m shares in PR, apparently the most successful of his companies). In relation to Mr Rajah, Mr Benichou s interest was said to be as beneficial owner of funds which were held in a bank account in the name (or under the control) of Mr Rajah. In relation to all these assets the Bank relies on a floating charge dated 17 October 1990 entered into in its favour by Mr Benichou. Despite its date the actual signature of the charge by Mr Benichou may have occurred after his receipt of a letter dated 27 October 1990 about which there has been much discussion. The floating charge is a standard-form printed document suitable for execution by an individual surety providing a secured guarantee of a company s indebtedness. It recites that Woventex had requested banking facilities of R15m (that sum being typed into the form). But in the body of the charge Woventex entered into an unlimited all monies obligation, as did Mr Benichou as guarantor; and Mr Benichou created in favour of the Bank a floating charge of all his undertaking, goodwill, movable and immovable properties as well as on all or any part of his properties which may from time to time belong to him and generally on all his properties of any kind and nature whatsoever and wheresoever. 6. The letter of 27 October 1990 has given rise to a good deal of argument. It is a commercial document, unlikely to have been prepared by lawyers, and there is no agreement or finding as to its commercial context (although it is clear from the letter itself that there were problems caused by the need for further financing of a project which was proving unexpectedly expensive and difficult). The gist of the letter was that the Bank would provide bridging finance to Woventex until further equity and loan capital had been contributed by various participants. Details of these were given and the letter went on (with paragraph numbers inserted for ease of reference):
4 4 [1]... being guaranteed by: (a) (b) (c) a pledge of all shares owned and/or controlled by yourself directly or indirectly in Maurigarments Co Ltd for an amount of R50M. a pledge of all shares owned and/or controlled by yourself directly or indirectly in PR Ltd, owner of Le Grand Gaube Hotel, for an amount of R50M a floating charge on your other personal assets in Mauritius for a total amount of R15M. [2] It is hereby agreed that the above guarantees will be terminated automatically and proportionately as soon as CDC, DEG and yourself (Soltex) actually disperse loans or subscribe to equity as per above Table I. [3] Put another way, the above guarantees will only stand for all amounts which, at any point in time, would still be financed by us beyond our commitments which are as follows. There is then a list of items of equity and loan capital totalling R202m. 7. Leading counsel for the appellant submitted that the Bank s attachment, so far as it depended on the floating charge, must fail for the simple reason that the claim was (apart from accrued interest) for much less than R202m. But that cannot be the correct interpretation of the words of paragraph [3] set out above. The Bank had permanent commitments to Woventex, in equity and loan capital, which by October 1990 amounted to R202m. Mr Benichou was not responsible for any of those sums. The Bank was then providing Woventex with further, temporary bridging finance which Mr Benichou was required to guarantee. He was to be liable for everything which the Bank advanced to Woventex beyond its existing commitments totalling R202m. Mr Malek s suggested interpretation would in effect put in place not one limit, but two limits of R202m. That point is in their Lordships view perfectly clear. There are other more obscure points on the letter of 27 October 1990 which it will be necessary to return to.
5 5 8. In relation to the PR shares (only) the Bank also relies on two pledges (nantissements) of Mr Benichou s 2,357m shares made on 12 October 1991 for R50m in respect of the indebtedness of Woventex and then on 11 September 1992 for R20m in respect of the indebtedness of Maurigarments. The Bank s case is that the pledges were to be effected by the delivery of blank transfers and share certificates, but that Mr Benichou repeatedly failed to comply with the Bank s requests to hand over the share certificates. Nevertheless, the Bank says, the pledges were registered in the books of PR under section 85 of the Companies Act 1984, and that was good enough to enable them to be enforced by way of attachment. Had the share certificates been delivered as they should have been, it is said on behalf of the Bank, the security would have been enforceable without the need for any application to the court at all. 9. Three applications by way of praecipe were made to the Supreme Court: (1) on 18 April 1994 for the attachment and sale of Mr Benichou s PR shares, (2) on 18 April 1994 for the attachment and sale of Mr Benichou s shares in the second group of garnishees, and (3) on 9 June 1994 for the attachment of Mr Benichou s funds in Mr Rajah s hands. The sum claimed by the first attachment was just over R76,295m with accruing interest. The second and third attachments claimed just over R56,295m with accruing interest. The difference (of exactly R20m) is accounted for by the multiplicity of securities relied on in the first attachment, which cover (on the Bank s case) Mr Benichou s liability for indebtedness of Maurigarments as well as for indebtedness of Woventex. 10. Mr Benichou has, on various grounds, resisted all three of the Bank s applications for attachment. But he did not take any positive action to protect his interests (as he could have done under article of the Civil Code) when the floating charge was crystallised. Nor did he contest the validity of the floating charge in a separate action (open to him under article of the Civil Code). The Supreme Court regarded Mr Benichou s failure to take action as providing a very short answer to his objections to the enforcement of the floating charge: Above all and furthermore, as submitted by learned Counsel for the attaching party, at no point in time has the defendant contested the validity of the charge in a separate action as provided by article of the Code Civil or object[ed] to the crystallization of the charge as provided for by article of the Code Civil. The defendant cannot therefore in the present proceedings for the validation of the attachment orders and at this late stage contest the validity of the charge.
6 6 11. Their Lordships are not satisfied that the Supreme Court, which has great experience in these matters, has been shown to have erred in this view. But in deference to the detailed arguments put forward by both sides their Lordships think it right to address the other issues raised in relation both to the floating charge and to the pledges of PR shares. In relation to the floating charge Mr Benichou raised before the Supreme Court a point on community of goods which was not relied on before the Board. But counsel for Mr Benichou did before the Board rely on two grounds of appeal which were considered in detail by the Surpreme Court. Counsel also relied on four further points which were, they say, raised in the Supreme Court (at least in written submissions) but were not considered (or were only very briefly considered) by the Supreme Court. These can be summarised as follows: (1) Article 1326 of the Civil Code; (2) Article 551 of the Civil Code; (3) the sale of the Reunion property; (4) the beneficial ownership of the funds held by Mr Rajah; (5) the letter of 27 October 1990 and the R15m limit on the floating charge; and (6) the agreement of 14 April Their Lordships will consider these points in turn. They will then address the point taken by the appellant in relation to the pledges. Points (1) to (4) above, and the pledges, were argued by Mr Oakley, junior counsel for the appellant. 12. Article 1326 provides: L acte juridique par lequel une seule partie s engage envers une autre à lui payer une somme d argent ou à lui livrer un bien fongible doit être constaté dans un titre qui comporte la signature de celui qui souscrit cet engagement ainsi que la mention, écrite par lui-meme, de la somme ou de la quantité en toutes letters et en chiffres. En cas de difference, l acte sous seing privé vaut pour la somme écrite en toutes letters. It is common ground that the floating charge did not comply with this article, since although Mr Benichou signed it, the figure R15,000,000 was typed onto the printed form. The Supreme Court held that this did not make the instrument void. The appellant submits that that missed the point, which was that the charge, since it did not comply with article 1326, was not a titre executoire (enforceable security).
7 7 13. Before the Board Mr Sauzier (for the Bank) has put forward further arguments: that the floating charge, once registered, was enforceable under article and of the Civil Code, and that that effect could have been set aside only by an action under article , which (as already noted) Mr Benichou never took. Mr Sauzier also submitted that article 1326 is giving effect to a policy of consumer protection, and that it has been held not to apply to commercial transactions between traders: see IOIB Ltd v Alleck [2004] SCJ 141 and Aquachem v Delphis Bank (in receivership) [2005] SCJ 32. Their Lordships accept these submissions as well-founded. 14. Article 551 provides: Il ne sera procédé à aucune saisie mobilière ou immobiliere, qu en vertu d un titre exécutoire, et pour des choses liquides et certaines: si la dette exigible n est pas d une somme en argent, il sera sursis, après la saisie, à toutes poursuites ultérieures, jusqu à ce que l appréciation en ait été faite. In short, an attachment is permitted only for a liquidated sum. If the sum claimed could be ascertained only by taking an account, attachment is not possible: Soomally v Soomally [1968] MR 138. That was a case in which a complicated account had to be taken in the administration of an estate, and it was admitted that some vouchers (needed for taking the account) were not available. The principle is not in doubt but their Lordships do not accept that it applies in this case. The Bank s claim is for the principal of, and unpaid interest on, monies advanced to Woventex. The necessary computation may be complex but the entire claim is for a liquidated sum. 15. In November 1992 the Bank agreed to Mr Benichou selling a property known as Reunion on condition that its proceeds of sale were (as it was put in the Bank s letter dated 20 November 1992) lodged in Maurigarments current account with us: being shareholder s equity or loan in the name of Mr J Benichou. The consent of the Bank (as holder of the floating charge) was needed because the sale of the property was not a routine business transaction. But the proceeds were not used to reduce Woventex s indebtedness to the Bank. The payment to Maurigarments was to be reflected either by an increased shareholding in Maurigarments owned by Mr Benichou, or by a debt owed by Maurigarments to Mr Benichou. The shares or debt would remain subject to the floating charge. This argument must therefore be rejected.
8 8 16. The point about the funds held by Mr Rajah must also be rejected. It was hardly mentioned in argument in the Supreme Court. There is no reliable evidence to support Mr Benichou s claim that he was not the beneficial owner of the funds, and some documentary evidence contradicts it. 17. The letter of 27 October 1990 evidenced what was intended to be a short-term arrangement to provide bridging finance covering the amounts of further equity and loan capital to be put into Woventex by Mr Benichou (through Soltex), CDC and DEG. The total new finance from these sources was set out in the letter as R122.7m. CDC and DEG were institutions of high standing and were obviously good for the money, once the necessary consultants report had been obtained. The funds to come from Mr Benichou may have been regarded as more problematical. 18. In these circumstances it would not have made commercial sense if paragraph [2] of the letter (set out in para 6 above) had produced the result that Mr Benichou s guarantee was drastically reduced in amount as soon as CDC and DEG complied with their obligations, even if (as happened) Soltex defaulted in its obligation. Leading counsel for Mr Benichou did not, as their Lordships understand it, press any argument to the contrary. Paragraph [3] of the letter, which their Lordships have already addressed, makes the position clear. It is also significant that in a recital (C) to a share subscription agreement dated 17 January 1992 (to which Mr Benichou was a party) it was recited that [the Bank] has made available to [Woventex] against securities provided by [Mr Benichou] a bridging overdraft in the amount of R36m bearing interest at variable rates. 19. Leading counsel did however argue that there was a limit of R15m on the principal sum secured by the floating charge. That figure appears both in the floating charge itself and in the letter of 27 October But in the floating charge it appears only as a recital (possibly for stamp duty purposes, although that is a conjecture) and the operative part of the charge is clearly unlimited in amount. Their Lordships recognise that the limit mentioned in the letter seems to present more of a problem. The Supreme Court did not refer to it directly, but repeated the point that Mr Benichou had not objected to the crystallisation of the floating charge. That point seems to carry special weight in a situation where Mr Benichou was relying on an informal, collateral document to vary the effect of a formal, registered charge, under a Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure which accord considerable importance to formalities.
9 9 Their Lordships are not therefore satisfied that the Supreme Court was in error in failing to deal with this point at greater length. 20. Finally, in relation to the floating charge, there is a point taken on a shareholders agreement dated 14 April This contained a recital (D) that it replaced and superseded the JVA. That does seem to have been its effect, since it contained complex options and other provisions superseding those in the JVA. But there is no reason to suppose that the agreement of 14 April 1992 was intended to put an end to the collateral stipulations in the letter of 27 October 1990, so far they were still operative at the latter date. As already mentioned, an agreement dated 17 January 1992 had recited Mr Benichou s secured liability for bridging finance provided to Woventex in the amount of R36m. For the reasons already mentioned their Lordships conclude that the collateral stipulations were still operative, and recital (D) did not bring them to an end. 21. Their Lordships can deal more briefly with the objections taken in regard to the pledges. They accept the submission of Mr Sauzier that, if the Bank had succeeded in obtaining custody of the share certificates which Mr Benichou had promised to deliver, it could have enforced its security (by a commercial sale) without the need for any judicial intervention. As it was, it had to go through the procedure of attachment. But that procedure was available, as the Supreme Court held, under section 85(2) of the Companies Act 1984 and article 2077 of the Civil Code. 22. Before the Board Mr Sauzier took some preliminary points which were not taken before the Supreme Court, and to which their Lordships have not yet referred. One was the submission that Mr Benichou, as a party who is still in contempt of court, ought not to be heard at all before the Board. The other main point relied on was that the subject-matter of the appeal is res judicata as a result of proceedings in France in which an appeal by Mr Benichou was dismissed by the Cour d Appel de Paris on 10 April 2002 and again by the Cour de Cassation on 14 October Their Lordships have concluded that they ought not to refuse to hear Mr Benichou at all in a matter in which leave to appeal has been granted by the Supreme Court. They consider that it is not necessary or appropriate to go into the complex issues raised by the res judicata issue. For the reasons set out above, which are essentially the same as those of the Supreme Court, their Lordships dismiss this appeal with costs.
GUIDE TO TAKING SECURITY IN GUERNSEY
GUIDE TO TAKING SECURITY IN GUERNSEY CONTENTS PREFACE 1 1. Types of Security Interests 2 2. Security Interest Agreements Generally 3 3. Creation of Security over Specific Intangibles 3 4. Registration
More informationChiniah v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 23 (17 April 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 101 of 2005
Chiniah v. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2007] UKPC 23 (17 April 2007) Privy Council Appeal No 101 of 2005 Jayram Chiniah The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appellant Respondent FROM THE COURT
More informationFederal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: Docket: A CORAM: NOËL J.A. DAWSON J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Citation: 2010 FCA 159 BETWEEN:
Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20100611 CORAM: NOËL J.A. DAWSON J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Docket: A-399-09 Citation: 2010 FCA 159 BETWEEN: EXIDA.COM LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY Appellant and
More informationJUDGMENT OF THE LORDS OF THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL. Delivered the 21st June 2006
Jauffur v. Commissioner of Income Tax (Mauritius) [2006] UKPC 32 (21 June 2006) Privy Council Appeal No 6 of 2005 Abdul Raouf Jauffur The Commissioner of Income Tax v. Appellant Respondent [2006]UKPC 32
More informationand MINISTER OF NATIONAL REVENUE (CANADA REVENUE AGENCY) And Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale CORAM: DAWSON J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Date: 20110307 Dockets: A-36-11 A-37-11 Citation: 2011 FCA 71 BETWEEN: OPERATION SAVE CANADA TEENAGERS and MINISTER OF NATIONAL
More informationGreece. Country Q&A Greece Restructuring and Insolvency 2005/06. Johnny Vekris and George Bersis, PI Partners. Country Q&A SECURITY AND PRIORITIES
Greece Restructuring and Insolvency 2005/06 Greece Johnny Vekris and George Bersis, PI Partners www.practicallaw.com/a47896 SECURITY AND PRIORITIES 1. What are the most common forms of security taken in
More informationMarley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd
Page 1 The West Indian Reports/Volume 46 /Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd - (1995) 46 WIR 233 Marley v Mutual Security Merchant Bank and Trust Co Ltd (1995) 46 WIR 233 JUDICIAL
More informationONTARIO LIMITED. and. Heard at Ottawa, Ontario, on September 25, Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on October 15, 2012.
Federal Court of Appeal Cour d'appel fédérale Date: 20121015 Docket: A-359-11 Citation: 2012 FCA 259 CORAM: NOËL J.A. SHARLOW J.A. MAINVILLE J.A. BETWEEN: 1207192 ONTARIO LIMITED and Appellant HER MAJESTY
More informationJUDGMENT. University of Technology, Mauritius (Appellant) v Gopeechand (Respondent) (Mauritius)
Michaelmas Term [2018] UKPC 26 Privy Council Appeal No 0069 of 2017 JUDGMENT University of Technology, Mauritius (Appellant) v Gopeechand (Respondent) (Mauritius) From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before
More informationPRACTICE DIRECTION A APPEALS. This practice direction supplements Part 20 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007
PRACTICE DIRECTION APPEALS This practice direction supplements Part 20 of the Court of Protection Rules 2007 PRACTICE DIRECTION A APPEALS 1. This practice direction applies to appeal proceedings within
More informationEASY WAY CATTLE OILERS LTD. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, on November 14, 2016.
Date: 20161128 Docket: A-432-15 Citation: 2016 FCA 301 CORAM: RENNIE J.A. DE MONTIGNY J.A. BETWEEN: EASY WAY CATTLE OILERS LTD. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Saskatoon, Saskatchewan,
More informationDate: Docket: A CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Citation: 2007 FCA 397 BETWEEN: SNC LAVALIN INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER FOR INT
Date: 20071212 Docket: A-309-03 CORAM: DESJARDINS J.A. TRUDEL J.A. Citation: 2007 FCA 397 BETWEEN: SNC LAVALIN INC. Appellant and THE MINISTER FOR INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION and THE MINISTER OF FOREIGN
More informationJUDGMENT. Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica)
Michaelmas Term [2017] UKPC 29 Privy Council Appeal No 0036 of 2016 JUDGMENT Meadows and others (Appellants) v The Attorney General and another (Respondents) (Jamaica) From the Court of Appeal of Jamaica
More informationBOUYGUES GROUP INTERNAL CHARTER ON REGULATED AGREEMENTS SCOPE OF APPLICATION
BOUYGUES GROUP INTERNAL CHARTER ON REGULATED AGREEMENTS SCOPE OF APPLICATION February 2016 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION I SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE REGULATIONS A The principle 1 - Entities concerned by the
More informationTax Court of Canada Judgments
Tax Court of Canada Judgments Nagel v. The Queen Court (s) Database: Tax Court of Canada Judgments Date: 2018-02-15 Neutral citation: 2018 TCC 32 File numbers: 2017-401(IT)APP Judges and Taxing Officers:
More informationJUDGMENT. Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent)
[2014] UKPC 30 Privy Council Appeal No 0043 of 2013 JUDGMENT Nelson and others (Appellants) v First Caribbean International Bank (Barbados) Limited (Respondent) From the Court of Appeal of St Lucia before
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/03023/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Court Justice Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 3 rd July 2017 On 5 th July 2017 Before
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and. Appearances For the Claimant: Ms. A. Cadie-Bruney For the Defendant: Mr. K. Monplaisir QC and Ms. M.
SAINT LUCIA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SUIT NO.: 595 of 2001 BETWEEN NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION Claimant and ROCHAMEL CONSTRUCTION LIMITED GARVIN FRENCH GARRY LILYWHITE Defendants Appearances For
More informationBouygues group Internal Charter. on Regulated Agreements. Scope of Application
Bouygues group Internal Charter on Regulated Agreements Scope of Application January 2013 SCOPE OF APPLICATION OF THE REGULATIONS CONTENTS INTRODUCTION A The principle 1 - Entities concerned by the regulations
More informationMy Lords, that a person may receive benefit though his income has never been sufficient to render him liable to contributions.
OPINION OF MR ADVOCATE-GENERAL WARNER DELIVERED ON 30 MARCH 1977 My Lords, This case comes before the Court by way of a reference for a preliminary ruling by the Hoge Raad of the Netherlands. The Appellant
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: PARTIES: HBU Properties Pty Ltd & Ors v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2015] QCA 95 HBU PROPERTIES PTY LTD AS TRUSTEE FOR THE SHANE MUNDEY FAMILY
More informationDecision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber
Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 9 January 2009, in the following composition: Slim Aloulou (Tunisia), Chairman Theo van Seggelen (Netherlands), Member Carlos
More informationIn the application between: Case no: A 166/2012
In the application between: Case no: A 166/2012 DEREK FREEMANTLE PUMA SPORT DISTRIBUTORS (PTY) LTD First Appellant Second Appellant v ADIDAS (SOUTH AFRICA) (PTY) LTD Respondent Court: Griesel, Yekisoet
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE J G MACDONALD. Between. and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 4 th February 2015 On 17 th February 2015 Before THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE PATTERSON
More informationClub Sportif Sfaxien ( the Appellant ) is a football club affiliated to the Tunisian Football Federation.
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2011/A/2508 award of 17 January 2012 Panel: Mr Alasdair Bell (United Kingdom), Sole Arbitrator Football Transfer contract with
More informationASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL
RS and SS (Exclusion of appellant from hearing) Pakistan [2008] UKAIT 00012 ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION TRIBUNAL THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at: Field House Date of Hearing: 18 December 2007 Before: Mr C M G
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D BETWEEN (NEW RIVER PARK LTD. CLAIMANT ( AND ( (THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED
CLAIM NO. 630 OF 2009 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2009 BETWEEN (NEW RIVER PARK LTD. CLAIMANT ( AND ( (THE BELIZE BANK LIMITED 1 st. DEFENDANT ( (REGENT INSURANCE CO. LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP) 2 nd
More informationTHE TAKEOVER PANEL HEARINGS COMMITTEE RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC ( RANGERS ) AND MR DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING ( MR KING )
2018/8 THE TAKEOVER PANEL HEARINGS COMMITTEE RANGERS INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL CLUB PLC ( RANGERS ) AND MR DAVID CUNNINGHAM KING ( MR KING ) RULING OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE HEARINGS COMMITTEE This Panel Statement
More informationArbitration CAS 2007/A/1367 FC Metallurg v. Leo Lerinc, award of 14 May Panel: Mr Otto de Witt Wijnen (the Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration FC Metallurg v. Leo Lerinc, Panel: Mr Otto de Witt Wijnen (the Netherlands), Sole Arbitrator Football Disciplinary sanction against
More informationJUDGMENT. Total Mauritius Limited (Appellant) v Abdurrahman (Respondent) (Mauritius)
Michaelmas Term [2015] UKPC 45 Privy Council Appeal No 0073 of 2014 JUDGMENT Total Mauritius Limited (Appellant) v Abdurrahman (Respondent) (Mauritius) From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before Lady Hale
More information(1) AIR ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED v (1) STEPHEN NHUTA (2) DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE (3) SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE
1 REPORTABLE (50) (1) AIR ZIMBABWE (PRIVATE) LIMITED (2) AIR ZIMBABWE HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED v (1) STEPHEN NHUTA (2) DEPUTY SHERIFF HARARE (3) SHERIFF OF ZIMBABWE THE SUPREME COURT OF ZIMBABWE ZIYAMBI
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY DEAN MCDOWELL 1. Mr McDowell a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 12 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under
More informationBERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS. Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius
BERLINWASSER INTERNATIONAL AG MAURITIUS v BENYDIN L.R 2017 SCJ 120 Record No. 6823 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS In the matter of:- Berlinwasser International AG Mauritius Appellant v L.R. Benydin
More informationAustrian Arbitration Law
Austrian Arbitration Law CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PART SIX CHAPTER FOUR ARBITRATION PROCEDURE FIRST TITLE GENERAL PROVISIONS Article 577. Scope of Application (1) The provisions of this Chapter apply if
More informationRACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY
RACING APPEALS TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER OF A STAY APPLICATION BY NEIL DAY 1. Mr Day a licensed trainer, has lodged an appeal against the decision of 13 March 2015 of the Stewards appointed under The Australian
More informationVN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) VN (Chicago Convention s 86(4)) Iran [2010] UKUT 303 (IAC) THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House On 29 June 2010 Before Mr C M G Ockelton, Vice President
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between. and. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Respondent
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Numbers: HU/10486/2015 HU/10497/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Centre City Tower, Decision & Reasons Promulgated Birmingham On 21 st July 2017 On 3 rd
More informationArchived Content. Contenu archivé
Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived
More informationThe Tax Information, Exchange Agreement between France and Jersey. in force as of 11th October, 2010
The Tax Information, Exchange Agreement between France and Jersey in force as of 11th October, 2010 Date: valid as at 28 th December, 2010 This short article is a summary of certain, not all, advantages
More informationArbitration CAS 2012/A/2786 FC Spartak a.s v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 29 August 2012
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2012/A/2786 FC Spartak a.s v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Panel: Mr Mark Hovell (United Kingdom),
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and
ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA IN THE COURT OF APPEAL HCVAP 2008/005 BETWEEN: JOSEPH W. HORSFORD Appellant and LESTER B. BIRD AND OTHERS Respondents Before: Kimberly Cenac-Phulgence Chief Registrar Representation:
More information(Consolidated version with amendments as at 15 December 2011)
The text below has been prepared to reflect the text passed by the National Assembly on 18 October 2011 and is for information purpose only. The authoritative version is the one published in the Government
More informationTHE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2011
THE LIMITED PARTNERSHIPS ACT 2011 Act 28/2011 Proclaimed by [Proclamation No. 21 of 2011] w.e.f 15 th December 2011 Government Gazette of Mauritius No. 100 of 12 November 2011 I assent SIR ANEROOD JUGNAUTH
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE M A HALL. Between
IAC-AH-SC-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Numbers: IA/29100/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 2 nd October 2015 On 12 th October
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 21 September 2015 On 18 December Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between
IAC-FH-NL-V1 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DC/00018/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination & Reasons Promulgated On 21 September 2015
More informationPart 2 GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, November 20, 1996, Vol. 128, No An Act to amend the Taxation Act and other legislative provisions
Part 2 GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, November 20, 1996, Vol. 128, No. 47 4449 NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SECOND SESSION THIRTY-FIFTH LEGISLATURE Bill 8 (1996, chapter 39) An Act to amend the Taxation Act and other
More informationJUDGMENT. National Transport Authority v Mauritius Secondary Industry Limited
[2010] UKPC 31 Privy Council Appeal No 0006 of 2010 JUDGMENT National Transport Authority v Mauritius Secondary Industry Limited From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before Lord Hope Lord Walker Lord Mance
More information2016-CFPB-0005 Document 1 Filed 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECI'ION BUREAU
2016-CFPB-0005 Document 1 Filed 02/23/2016 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECI'ION BUREAU ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING File No. 2016-CFPB- In the Matter of: CONSENT ORDER SOLOMON
More informationCAS 2015/A/ FC
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2015/A/4026-4033 FC Sportul Studentesc SA v. Valentin Marius Lazar, Daniel-Cornel Lung, Sebastian Marinel Ghinga, Leonard Dobre,
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE HANBURY. Between
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/03806/2014 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Determination Promulgated On 22 December 2014 On 8 January 2015 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Qld Pork P/L v Lott [2003] QCA 271 PARTIES: QLD PORK PTY LTD ABN 62 257 371 610 (plaintiff/respondent) v COLLEEN THERESE LOTT (defendant/appellant) FILE NO/S: Appeal
More informationPart 2 GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, May 4, 2016, Vol. 148, No
Part 2 GAZETTE OFFICIELLE DU QUÉBEC, May 4, 2016, Vol. 148, No. 18 1921 2. Material required to be filed or delivered under section 2.9 of Regulation 45-106 respecting Prospectus Exemptions 3. Disclosure
More informationBefore the Arbiter for Financial Services. Case 377/2016. Citadel Insurance plc (C21550) Hearing of 28 November The Arbiter,
Before the Arbiter for Financial Services Case 377/2016 TG vs Citadel Insurance plc (C21550) Hearing of 28 November 2017 The Arbiter, Having seen the complaint whereby complainant states that she is filing
More informationUpper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) PA/08153/2017 Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 15 March 2018 On 11 May 2018 Before DEPUTY UPPER
More informationBRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant. MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent JUDGMENT OF THE COURT REASONS OF THE COURT. (Given by Asher J)
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA211/2016 [2016] NZCA 636 BETWEEN AND BRIAN MURRAY DAKEN Appellant MURRAY EDWIN NIGEL WIIG Respondent Hearing: 20 October 2016 Court: Counsel: Judgment: Asher, Heath
More informationArbitration CAS 2017/A/5227 Sporting Clube de Braga v. Club Dynamo Kyiv & Gerson Alencar de Lima Junior, award of 8 March 2018
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration CAS 2017/A/5227 Sporting Clube de Braga v. Club Dynamo Kyiv & Gerson Alencar de Lima Junior, Panel: Mr Sofoklis Pilavios (Greece),
More informationNAB EQUITY LENDING. Facility Terms
NAB EQUITY LENDING Facility Terms This document contains important information regarding the terms and conditions which will apply to your NAB Equity Lending Facility. You should read this document carefully
More informationJUDGMENT. Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf
[2012] UKPC 14 Privy Council Appeal No 0066 of 2011 JUDGMENT Lamusse Sek Sum & Co v Late Bai Rehmatbai Waqf From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before Lord Hope Lord Brown Lord Mance Lord Dyson Lord Sumption
More informationREGULATION TO AMEND REGULATION RESPECTING MUTUAL FUNDS. Section 1.1 of Regulation respecting Mutual Funds is amended:
REGULATION TO AMEND REGULATION 81-102 RESPECTING MUTUAL FUNDS Securities Act (RSQ, c V-11, s 3311, par, (3), (11), (16), (17) and (34)) 1 Section 11 of Regulation 81-102 respecting Mutual Funds is amended:
More informationArbitration Act of Angola Republic of Angola (Angola - République d'angola)
Arbitration Act of Angola Republic of Angola (Angola - République d'angola) VOLUNTARY ARBITRATION LAW (Law no. 16/03 of 25 July 2003) CHAPTER I THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT ARTICLE 1 (The Arbitration Agreement)
More informationCASE NO: 554/90 AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD VAN COLLER, AJA :
CASE NO: 554/90 JACOBUS ALENSON APPELLANT AND A B BRICKWORKS (PTY) LTD RESPONDENT VAN COLLER, AJA : CASE NO: 554/90 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (APPELLATE DIVISION) In the matter between: JACOBUS
More informationArbitration CAS 2010/A/2139 Kauno Futbolo Ir Beisbolo Klubas v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), award of 26 October 2010
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Kauno Futbolo Ir Beisbolo Klubas v. Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA), Panel: Mr Michele Bernasconi (Switzerland),
More informationArbitration CAS 2007/A/1274 M. v. Ittihad Club, award of 18 December 2007
Tribunal Arbitral du Sport Court of Arbitration for Sport Arbitration Panel: Mr. Hans Nater (Switzerland), President; Mr. Jean-Jacques Bertrand (France); Mr. Pantelis Dedes (Greece) Football Standing to
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between AH (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
AA/06781/2014 Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 April 2016 On 22 July 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIn The Supreme Court of Belize A.D., 2010
In The Supreme Court of Belize A.D., 2010 Civil Appeal No. 2 In the Matter of an Appeal pursuant to section 43 (1) of the Income and Business Tax Act, CAP 55 of the Laws of Belize 2000 In the Matter of
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) IA/50518/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Sent: On July 30, 2014 On August 4, 2014 Before DEPUTY UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE ALIS MISS ADAKU UZOAMAKA
More informationJUDGMENT. Shophold (Mauritius) Ltd (Appellant) v The Assessment Review Committee and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)
Easter Term [2016] UKPC 12 Privy Council Appeal No 0090 of 2014 JUDGMENT Shophold (Mauritius) Ltd (Appellant) v The Assessment Review Committee and another (Respondents) (Mauritius) From the Supreme Court
More informationHEARING DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CHARTERED CERTIFIED ACCOUNTANTS REASONS FOR DECISION In the matter of: Mr Jawad Raza Heard on: Thursday 7 and Friday 8 June 2018 Location: ACCA Head Offices,
More informationRajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an
Rajen Hanumunthadu v The state and the independent commission against corruption. 2010 SCJ 288 Judgment delivered on 01 September 2010 This was an appeal from the Intermediate Court where the Appellant
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05. ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent. William Young P, Arnold and Ellen France JJ
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND CA256/05 BETWEEN AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF WORK AND INCOME Appellant ANTHONY ARBUTHNOT Respondent Hearing: 24 August 2006 Court: Counsel: William
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN. ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS LIMITED AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL No. 214 of 2010 BETWEEN ALAN DICK AND COMPANY LIMITED [Improperly sued as Alan Dick and Company] APPELLANT AND FAST FREIGHT FORWARDERS
More informationWe Willem-Alexander, by the grace of God, King of the Netherlands, Prince of Orange-Nassau, etc. etc. etc.
Amendment to the Bankruptcy Act in connection with the implementation of the option to declare a composition for restructuring debts made outside bankruptcy universally binding (Continuity of Enterprises
More informationHOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE
HOUSE OF LORDS OPINIONS OF THE LORDS OF APPEAL FOR JUDGMENT IN THE CAUSE Serco Limited (Respondents) v. Lawson (Appellant) Botham (FC) (Appellant) v. Ministry of Defence (Respondents) Crofts (Respondent)
More informationRent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest
Rent in advance not a deposit: Court of Appeal latest The Court of Appeal in their latest judgement has confirmed that rent paid in advance is not a deposit. This was the case of Johnson vs Old which was
More information- and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE JOHN BROOKS. Sitting in public at the Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London on 11 November 2016
[2016] UKFTT 772 (TC) TC05499 Appeal number: TC/2012/08116 PROCEDURE Appeal against discovery assessment - Case management directions for progress of appeal Whether appellant or respondents should open
More informationPROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused. - and - TRIBUNAL: JUDGE HARRIET MORGAN
Appeal number: TC/13/06946 PROCEDURE application for stay in proceedings - refused FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL TAX CHAMBER JUMBOGATE LIMITED Appellant - and - THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY S REVENUE & CUSTOMS
More informationJUDGMENT. Baptiste (Appellant) v Investment Managers Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago)
Easter Term [2018] UKPC 13 Privy Council Appeal No 0042 of 2017 JUDGMENT Baptiste (Appellant) v Investment Managers Limited (Respondent) (Trinidad and Tobago) From the Court of Appeal of the Republic of
More informationresident in France, and the income tax advantages.
Peter Harris Article : Definition of residence for those couples and households where one is not resident in France, and the income tax advantages. 28 th June, 2016. This is not intended to be professional
More informationJUDGMENT. Li Chen Ling Kaw (Appellant) v Societe Piang Sang Pere et Fils and Chong Fee Ng Wong (Respondents)
[2012] UKPC 19 Privy Council Appeal No 0109 of 2010 JUDGMENT Li Chen Ling Kaw (Appellant) v Societe Piang Sang Pere et Fils and Chong Fee Ng Wong (Respondents) From the Supreme Court of Mauritius before
More information1. Teck Yan Chan Sui Ko 2. The Mauritius Commercial Bank Ltd. AND
MAURITIUS FREEZONE LOGISTICS LTD & ORS v TECK YAN CHAN SUI KO & ANOR 2012 SCJ 154 SCR No. 2730M and CO 2831M IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MAURITIUS (COMMERCIAL DIVISION) In the matter of : 1. Mauritius Freezone
More informationFIRST SUPPLEMENT DATED 31 AUGUST 2015 TO THE BASE PROSPECTUS DATED 24 JULY 2015
FIRST SUPPLEMENT DATED 31 AUGUST TO THE BASE PROSPECTUS DATED 24 JULY Crédit Mutuel-CIC Home Loan SFH (société de financement de l'habitat duly licensed as a French specialised credit institution) 30,000,000,000
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE WARR. Between I L (ANONYMITY DIRECTION MADE) and THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: AA/12026/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 24 May 2016 On 1 June 2016 Before UPPER TRIBUNAL
More informationIN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14. LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant
IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER OF AND IN THE MATTER BETWEEN AND AND AND [2018] NZEmpC 33 ARC 98/13 ARC 22/14 challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority of an application
More informationALBION VENTURE CAPITAL TRUST PLC DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT SCHEME
ALBION VENTURE CAPITAL TRUST PLC DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT SCHEME (Issued December 2015) Shareholders should consult their stockbroker, bank manager, solicitor, accountant or other independent financial adviser
More informationFLSMIDTH LTD. and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN. Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on May 30, Judgment delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, June 18, 2013.
Date: 20130618 Docket: A-47-12 Citation: 2013 FCA 160 CORAM: NOËL J.A. TRUDEL J.A. MAINVILLE J.A. BETWEEN: FLSMIDTH LTD. Appellant and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN Respondent Heard at Montréal, Quebec, on May
More informationIN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERATION OF ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS NEVIS CIRCUIT (CIVIL)
IN THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE FEDERATION OF ST. CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS NEVIS CIRCUIT (CIVIL) SUIT NO: NEVHMT2003/0009 BETWEEN: Angelo Gabriel Le Blanc Judgment Debtor/Petitioner
More informationFORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, MTHATHA JUDGMENT
FORM A FILING SHEET FOR EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, MTHATHA JUDGMENT PARTIES: Tandwefika Dazana VS Edge To Edge 1199 CC Case Bo: A121/08 Magistrate: High Court: EASTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, MTHATHA DATE HEARD:
More informationCayman Islands: Restructuring & Insolvency
The In-House Lawyer: Comparative Guides Cayman Islands: Restructuring & Insolvency inhouselawyer.co.uk /index.php/practice-areas/restructuring-insolvency/cayman-islands-restructuringinsolvency/ 5/3/2017
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 2012 BLUE SKY BELIZE LIMITED BELIZE AQUACULTURE LIMITED
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF BELIZE AD 2014 CIVIL APPEAL NO 8 OF 2012 BLUE SKY BELIZE LIMITED Appellant v BELIZE AQUACULTURE LIMITED Respondent BEFORE The Hon Mr Justice Dennis Morrison The Hon Mr Justice
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 March 2018 On 19 March Before
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: HU/00402/2015 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Field House Decision & Reasons Promulgated On 13 March 2018 On 19 March 2018 Before THE HONOURABLE
More informationSTATUTORY CONDITIONS (Applicable to Alberta and British Columbia only)
STATUTORY CONDITIONS (Applicable to Alberta and British Columbia only) Misrepresentation 1. If a person applying for insurance falsely describes the property to the prejudice of the insurer, or misrepresents
More informationFirst Supplement dated 5 October 2017 to the Euro Medium Term Note Programme Base Prospectus dated 14 September 2017
First Supplement dated 5 October 2017 to the Euro Medium Term Note Programme Base Prospectus dated 14 September 2017 HSBC France 20,000,000,000 Euro Medium Term Note Programme This first supplement (the
More informationBERMUDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT : 24
QUO FA T A F U E R N T BERMUDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ACT 1883 1883 : 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 1A 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8A 8AA 8B 8C 8D 8E 8F 8G 8H 9 9A 9B 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [repealed] Interpretation Constitution
More informationSection: 3A Exercise of powers and duties E.R. 1 of /02/2012
case of an equality of votes the chairman or presiding member shall have a second or a casting vote. (d) The Board of Inland Revenue may transact any of its business by the circulation of papers without
More informationArticles of Association
Aéroports de Paris A public limited company (Société Anonyme) with share capital of 296,881,806 Registered office: 1, rue de France, 93290 Tremblay en France Registered in the Trade and Companies Register
More informationTHE IMMIGRATION ACTS. Before UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE KOPIECZEK. Between. THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT Appellant and
Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Appeal Number: DA/01787/2013 THE IMMIGRATION ACTS Heard at Royal Courts of Justice Determination Promulgated On 7 July 2014 On 15 th Aug 2014 Judgment given
More informationAMENDED AND RESTATED RESTRUCTURING SUPPORT AGREEMENT
Execution version AMENDED AND RESTATED RESTRUCTURING SUPPORT AGREEMENT THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED RESTRUCTURING SUPPORT AGREEMENT (including the annexes, exhibits and schedules attached hereto and as amended,
More informationConditional Fee Agreement ( CFA ) [For use in personal injury and clinical negligence cases only].
Disclaimer This model agreement is not a precedent for use with all clients and it will need to be adapted/modified depending on the individual clients circumstances and solicitors business models. In
More informationJUDGMENT. Grove Park Development Ltd (Appellant) v The Mauritius Revenue Authority and another (Respondents) (Mauritius)
Hilary Term [2017] UKPC 4 Privy Council Appeal No 0044 of 2016 JUDGMENT Grove Park Development Ltd (Appellant) v The Mauritius Revenue Authority and another (Respondents) (Mauritius) From the Supreme Court
More informationThe Appellant, a former ADTO of the Ministry of..., hereinafter referred to as the Ministry, lodged an appeal as her appointment was terminated.
Ruling 05 of 2016 In order to decide whether a termination of appointment was related to the appointment exercise or was in fact a disciplinary measure, the Tribunal must hear the case on the merits. The
More information