(c) Passing off and the foreign plaintiff

You then performed surgery upon the plaintiff?

The plaintiff argued that there was no dispute.

The first plaintiff entered into a tenancy agreement.

The court had scheduled 52 sessions to question 42 plaintiff witnesses, 15 co plaintiff witnesses, and 63 witnesses for the 5 accused.

45. The procedural position of the plaintiff was also affected.

The defendant applied to stay the action commenced by the first plaintiff, based on article 8(1) of the Model Law, and to stay the action of the second plaintiff pending resolution of the arbitration between the first plaintiff and the defendant.

A foreign award was made in favour of the second plaintiff.

The plaintiff relied upon a purported oral agreement and subsequent correspondence.

The plaintiff attests you stole a headpiece of diamond, a tiara.

The first plaintiff sought leave to enforce the award as a judgment in favour of the second plaintiff, in accordance with article 35(1) of the Model Law.

The plaintiff commenced proceedings based upon claims relating to three construction contracts.

The plaintiff submitted that the decision as to jurisdiction was an 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.

The court also ordered the plaintiff to calculate the interests of the debt.

The second plaintiff was placed in liquidation outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong.

The plaintiff then argued there was a settlement agreement, which overrode the contract.

The defendant had added the first plaintiff in the action under the guarantee.

The court ruled that there was no right of appeal for the plaintiff.

The plaintiff argued that there was no dispute to be referred to arbitration.

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

The premises were used as a restaurant in the name of the second plaintiff.

The plaintiff issued a writ claiming monies arising from invoices submitted to the defendant.

Summoning of the victim, witness, civil plaintiff, civil respondent, their representatives and experts (article 476)

In civil matters both the plaintiff and the defendant are at liberty to call witnesses.

The defendant commenced proceedings against the parent company of the first plaintiff under the guarantee.

The correspondence from the defendant requested that the first plaintiff chose between litigation and arbitration.

The first plaintiff was required to provide a guarantee of its obligations from its parent company.

The plaintiff, Guns N'Roses, abruptly concluded a concert promising to ensure partial reimbursement of the ticket price.

Finally, the plaintiff submitted that the arbitration clause in the contract did not apply to the proceedings.

The defence still has 1 1 important witnesses able to testify... while the plaintiff has but one.

On 18 April 1978, however, the plaintiff and the defendant settled their dispute by signing an extrajudicial agreement, according to which the defendant would pay 300.000.000 Argentinean pesos to the plaintiff, a payment that was effected on 28 April 1978.

On 15 April 1996, the plaintiff and his wife transferred their rights in the lawsuit to Mariategui S.A.C.I.M.A.C.

As to the third contract, the plaintiff, although with less supporting evidence, submitted there was no longer any dispute.

The plaintiff sought a declaration that the arbitrators did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the arbitration currently before them.

The court decided to exercise its discretion, based on article 36(1) of the Model Law, in favour of the plaintiff.

Should the plaintiff be dissatisfied with a trial court decision, he may go before a court of appeal, which rules on appeals

The plaintiff obtained leave to enforce a foreign award as a judgment, in accordance with article 35(1) of the Model Law.

The first plaintiff argued that the defendant had rescinded the arbitration clause by agreement in correspondence between the solicitors of the parties.

The solicitors for the first plaintiff replied that there was no objection to the matters being referred to the jurisdiction of the court.

The plaintiff had been granted leave to enforce a foreign award as a judgment, in accordance with article 35(1) of the Model Law.

The defendant applied for a stay of proceedings based on article 8(1) of the Model Law. The plaintiff argued that there was no dispute.

The plaintiff argued that despite the agreement to arbitrate disputes, the parties had subsequently agreed not to arbitrate but to proceed by way of litigation.

The plaintiff could utilize the same appeal procedure as is applicable to ordinary civil litigation against a judgement refusing to grant enforcement of an arbitral award.

Nature of work I was involved in handling a lot of cases as plaintiff or defence counsel, but in most cases criminal matters from June November 1984