THE TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO FOOTBALL ASSOCIATIONCourt Decision • October 15th, 2020
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE HIGH COURTCourt Decision • August 20th, 2018
[1] It is a regular feature of modern civil litigation that courts may order parties to serve on each other a statement of the evidence of any witness on which they intend to rely at the trial. That is provided for in Part 29.4 (1) of the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • April 8th, 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • November 8th, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2011 CLAIM NO. 145 of 2011Court Decision • July 16th, 2011
Mr. Michael Young SC and Mrs. Pamela Watson for the claimant. Mr. Godfrey Smith SC for the eighth to the eleventh defendants. Mrs. Magali Marin Young for the Interested Party.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • February 17th, 2020
[1] This decision deals with the objection taken during the trial by Counsel for the Claimant to three witnesses being called to give evidence pursuant to witness summonses issued on 12 October 2018 on behalf of the Second to Fifth Defendants. These witnesses are:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • July 19th, 2011
BETWEENCourt Decision • April 11th, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • January 5th, 2021
DAVID ALEXANDER MURPHYCourt Decision • March 23rd, 2020
BETWEENCourt Decision • March 12th, 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • July 30th, 2020
ContractCourt Decision • November 3rd, 2014
Neutral citation Style of Cause Date Judge Location Matter Disposition CANLIIcitation QLcitation WeC 2001 NUCJ 01 Kadlak v. Nunavut (Minister of Sustainable Development) 4-Jan-01 Kilpatrick, J. Iqaluit Wildlife Act; s. 42(1) exemption; Nunavut Land Claims Agreement; desire to hunt polar bears with spears in a traditional Inuit fashion Minister's decision to disallow the NWMB authorization for a traditional hunt quashed for lack of reasons 2001NUCJ 1 [2001]Nu.J. No.1 2001Carswell Nun 1 [2001] 1C.N.L.R. 147; [2001] 6W.W.R. 276 2001 NUCJ 02 Crowley v. Iqaluit 12-Oct-01 Browne, J. Iqaluit application for interim injunction to halt garbage burning in Iqaluit application adjourned to future indeterminate date 2001CanLII 2461 [2001]Nu.J. No.2 2001Carswell Nun 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • March 11th, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • December 10th, 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL – CIVIL DIVISIONCourt Decision • September 16th, 2014
On November 2, 2001 Williams J.A., made an order on the application of the appellant/plaintiff the terms of which include the following:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BELIZE, A.D. 2023Court Decision • September 30th, 2023
Mrs. Samira Musa Pott with Mrs. Melissa Balderamos - Mahler, Counsel for 1st Defendant. Mr. Douglas Mendes, S.C. and Ms. Iliana Swift, Counsel for 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • December 19th, 2016
BETWEENCourt Decision • February 15th, 2012
IN THE CARIBBEAN COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • May 10th, 2017
having regard to the originating application filed at the Court on 27th July 2016, together with the annexures thereto, the defence filed on 14th October 2016, the written submissions of the Claimants filed on 20th December 2016, the written submissions of the Defendant filed on 24th January 2017, the Claimants’ addendum to their written submissions filed on 31st January 2017, the case management conference held on 1st November 2016, and to the public hearing held on 1st February 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • May 8th, 2019
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGOCourt Decision • December 20th, 2011
BETWEENCourt Decision • February 3rd, 2021
CLAIM NO: CV2018-01287Court Decision • May 2nd, 2019
DECISION ON THE SECOND DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED 30TH AUGUST 2018 AND THE CLAIMANT’S NOTICE OF APPLICATION DATED 13TH FEBRUARY 2019
In the High Court of JusticeCourt Decision • February 17th, 2021
[1] The Claimant has brought an Application to strike out the First of the First Defendants’ as well as the Second Defendant’s1 Defence and Amended Defence and Counterclaim. Within the same application, he seeks summary judgment against both the First and Second Defendants. The Claimant brings this action by way of his lawful attorney, Peter Walter Bostic.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • June 25th, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • March 14th, 2018
EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES COMPANY LIMITED First Defendant THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Second Defendant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • April 8th, 2013
[1] By Claim Form and Statement of Case filed on the 24th November, 2008, the Claimants alleged that the business or affairs of the Second-named Defendant have been and are being carried on or conducted by the First-named Defendant, as the Chairman and/or de facto controlling Director and majority shareholder, in a manner that is oppressive and/or unfairly prejudicial to, or that unfairly disregarded the interests of, the Second-named Claimant as a Director of the Second-named Defendant.
ANDCourt Decision • October 14th, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • March 8th, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • May 15th, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • October 9th, 2018
CORAM: NOËL J.A. NADON J.A. RYER J.A.Court Decision • June 20th, 2008
The AHOUSAHT INDIAN BAND, The DITIDAHT INDIAN BAND, The EHATTESAHT INDIAN BAND, The HESQUIAHT INDIAN BAND, The HUPACASATH INDIAN BAND, The HUU-AY-AHT INDIAN BAND,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • February 13th, 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICECourt Decision • May 11th, 2017
