The defendant supplied three medical reports.

Donald Inc. (the respondent) in order to obtain reimbursement of part of the ticket price.

The stay was granted, but the claimant appealed against it.

It was in fact for the arbitrators to decide what effect, if any, the respondent's failure to settle demurrage should have on the respondent's liability.

In turn, the plaintiff brought an incidental warranty action in appeal against the respondent.

Moreover, whereas the defendant was not able to cross question her ophthalmologist, the author had the opportunity to cross question the expert proposed by the defendant.

On many occasions, developed country Governments were the defendants.

In the Court's view, the respondent's right to be heard was not infringed through the allegedly incomplete discussion of the respondent's essential arguments in the reasoning of the award.

On 4 October 1977, the Court ruled for the plaintiff, sentenced the defendants to pay the true value of the works, and decided that the plaintiff should liquidate the debt.

On 20 December 1977, the Supreme Court of the Province of Buenos Aires approved the liquidation of the debt made by the plaintiff and set in 160 millions of Argentinean pesos the amount that the defendant should pay.

If he did not have counsel, the procurator or the court could assign a lawyer to the defendant's case.

The respondent objected, invoking the Polish judgment and the lack of a valid arbitration agreement.

The defendant sought to have the suit removed to Belgium, arguing that Ontario was forum non conveniens.

(c) Representation of the respondent before the Board when a staff member requests suspension of action of an administrative decision

The claimant also filed an application for an order requesting that funds of the joint venture be frozen at a Canadian Bank.

On 28 February 1978, the court ordered the defendants to pay 346.511.355 Argentinean pesos.

Though the respondent did not initiate any annulment proceedings, the three month period did not expire as the claimant commenced the enforcement proceedingsThe Court, however, rejected all the respondent's defences, since it deemed a valid arbitration agreement to exist.

In the event of disparity between Omani law and the law of the place where the offence took place, the Omani judge may take such disparity into consideration in the interest of the defendant.

Finally, the source is of the opinion that the sentence handed down is disproportionate to the alleged offences.

The defendant had no legal counsel (legal assistance and legal representation were allowed in civil cases only).

The defendant could also be represented in court by a family member or a representative of, for example, a trade union.

The claimant argued that the respondent had taken a step in the proceedings when it served a request for discovery of documents in the action.

(b) To advise both the appellant and the respondent as stated above, the Administrative Law Unit represents the respondent at all stages of the appeals process.

The prosecutor's indictment in that case stated that in March 2007 in Betasi, Taiboko the first defendant entrusted some traditional medicine to the second defendant to be given to the victim J and to be taken in accordance with instructions set out by the first defendant.

2. If the carrier or maritime performing party institutes an action under this instrument against the shipper or other cargo interest, then the claimant, at the petition of the defendant, must remove the action to one of the places referred to in articles 72 or 72 bis, at the choice of the defendant.

Subject matter Right to request the summons of an expert on the same terms as the defendant in an action under labour laws

Even if the complainant had attempted to avail himself of this recourse, he would have been prevented from pursuing it as, under articles 186 and 106 of the Civil Procedure Code he would have to identify the name of the respondent.

Genocide s stringent requirements mean that it is and should be difficult to convict a defendant.

A defendant had the right to legal representation at all stages of the trial and within 24 hours of being detained.

It finally asserted that the respondent had waived its right to arbitration by commencing a Builder's Lien action.

The respondent objected that the claimant was barred, because the matter had already been settled by the arbitral award.

Secondly, when the defendant's expert gave testimony during the proceedings, the author or her counsel could have objected.

As for sexual harassment beyond the workplace, if the act is considered a rape, the defendant must be punished according to the Criminal Law.

The view was also expressed that the suggested mechanism for removal of actions could add to the litigation costs of the defendant since it could only be triggered by the first action, while reversing the mechanism to request subsequent plaintiffs to sue in the forum nominated by the defendant would be preferable.

One acquittal was overturned, resulting in the conviction of one defendant of crimes against humanity, while the other four cases were dismissed.

Alleged victim(s) The complainant

Alleged victims The complainant

On behalf of The complainant

Alleged victims The complainants

Alleged victim The authors

Alleged victim The authors

The respondent, Satnam Vaid, was the driver of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He filed a complaint of discrimination based on race with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Court acknowledged that the respondent was not time barred to raise defences against enforcement, since the three month period only started to run when the award was formally served on the respondent and registered with the German Courts, as required under the old law.

The importance of expert testimony could be seen in the fact that the judge had indeed listened to the testimony of the expert proposed by the defendant and assigned decisive weight to it in his judgement.

The respondents applied to have the Commission's directives set aside.