In Xxxxxxxx Sample Clauses

In Xxxxxxxx v Xxxxx0, a case of a garnishee order made absolute where the debt thought to be payable to the judgment debtor personally, was in fact owed to a company of which the judgment debtor was an officer, Xxxxx X stated of the garnishee order absolute (emphasis mine)- “On the authority of Xxxxx x. Xxxxxxx (1) and on general principles I have come to the conclusion that I must do what I can to remedy the injustice done by the garnishee order. In my opinion, there is no particular sanctity about a garnishee order, although it may have been made absolute and is so termed.” Additionally Xxxxx X. in his final word in the judgment, added that he entirely dissented from the notion that a garnishee order absolute could not be set aside. In the circumstances, the Court commences its consideration of the law by finding that a final attachment of debts order can be set aside as same is implied in Rule 50.13(3). However, in the absence of any specified power or procedure for so doing, it is pursuant to the Court’s inherent jurisdiction that the final order would have to be set aside.

In Xxxxxxxx. The appellant applied for an order compelling the respondent to register the cession of a certain lease. From the petition it appeared that on the 4th August, 1896, the Johannesburg Brick and Potteries Co., Ltd., acquired from the Goldfields Deep, Ltd., the Xxxxxxxx Deep, Ltd., and the Village Main Reef G. M. Co., Ltd., a lease of a portion of the farm Turffontein for a period not exceeding ninety-nine years, “ for the purpose of digging, getting out, excavating, and removing from the same all earths, clay, sand, and other materials used in the manufacture of pottery, earthen­ ware, bricks, tiles, pipes, and all other goods and wares manu­ factured from the said substances.” By a further clause of the lease the lessors reserved to themselves “ the right to all minerals, precious stones, coal, &c., situate in or under the said extent of land hereby demised, and to work and mine for the same with the necessary access thereto,” &c. The Johannesburg Brick and Potteries Co., Ltd., was in 1902 placed in voluntary liquidation.

In Xxxxxxxx. At the hearing the Judge inquired as to why proceedings had been brought in the BVI rather than in Cameroon. He was told of the presence of available assets in France and of provisional seizure orders granted there. It was explained that those orders were contingent on an action being brought within a limited time. It was further explained that the BVI had been chosen because of the parties’ agreement concerning the governing law and the Court for any disputes. No mention was made of the summary proceedings commenced in the TGI in connection with the attachment orders which had been obtained. This would have left the Judge with the impression that the issue of proceedings in the BVI was a requirement for the continued viability of those attachments. [13] Moreover, the Judge was not told at the hearing that Xxxxx had already obtained judgment in the Paris Commercial Court granting substantively the relief intended to be claimed in the proceedings which were the subject of the application. [14] In that state of knowledge, the Judge gave permission to serve out. Service was effected on 18th October 2010, and acknowledged. The application to set aside service [15] By application issued on 14th December 2010, the Bank asked the Court to set aside service of the claim on the bases, firstly, that Xxxxx’x failure to disclose details of the same alleged non-performance of the same contract amounted to a failure to fulfill its duty to give full and xxxxx disclosure of the facts relevant to the application for permission to serve out; and secondly, that the institution of the instant proceedings in the BVI amounted to an abuse of process since these proceedings involved a claim for the outstanding balance on the same loan for which Xxxxx had already obtained judgment in the Paris Commercial Court. Non-disclosure [16] Xxxxxxxxx X. (Ag.) accepted that the non-disclosures were ‘material and serious’ but concluded that Xxxxx should not be penalized in consequence. He gave two reasons. Firstly, he noted that, rather than joining issue with Xxxxx on the merits of the claim in the proceedings in France, the Bank had challenged the jurisdiction of the French Courts to entertain the claim. As a result of that challenge Xxxxx had been driven to sue in the Commercial Court in the BVI, the forum identified by the Bank as having jurisdiction to hear the matter. Full disclosure of the details of the proceedings in the French Courts would have inevitably exposed the Banks stance in...

In Xxxxxxxx. XXXXX, X. [1] By a document entitled “Ex parte Notice of Application for Court Orders,” filed on the 10th August 2016, the Claimants seek the following Orders:

In Xxxxxxxx. Security’s sole discretion, there are excessive false alarms or due to unacceptable Client conduct or should it not be cost effective to render the service.