The Law of Security and Title-Based Financing

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beale Hugh ◽  
Bridge Michael ◽  
Gullifer Louise ◽  
Lomnicka Eva
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Cape Town ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Commercial Practice ◽  
Personal Property ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legislative Changes ◽  
Economic Function

Personal property security is an important subject in commercial practice as it is the key to much of the law of banking and sale. This book examines traditional methods of securing debts (such as mortgages, charges, and pledges) on property other than land, describing how these are created, how they must be registered (or otherwise ‘perfected’) if they are to be valid, the rights and duties of the parties, and how the security is enforced if the debt is not paid. This third edition has been updated to cover the wealth of case law, including new cases on control of financial collateral, and relief against forfeiture under a financial collateral arrangement; on retention of title (including the effect of ‘extended’ clauses); estoppel and the HPI register; availability of set-off against assignee; a number of cases on enforcement of security; equitable liens; solicitor’s liens and databases; on priority or purchase money security interests; and the Irish Supreme Court decision on floating charge and crystallization. There have also been significant legislative changes, which are discussed in detail, most notably the 2013 amendments to Companies Act 2006 Part 25, and Cape Town Convention. The book covers traditional security over personal property and also devices that fulfil a similar economic function, such as retention of title and sales of receivables.

Hayes & Williams' Family Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Gilmore ◽  
Lisa Glennon
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Child Support ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

Hayes and Williams’ Family Law, now in its sixth edition, provides critical and case-focused discussion of the key legislation and debates affecting adults and children. The volume takes a critical approach to the subject and includes ‘talking points’ and focused ‘discussion questions’ throughout each chapter which highlight areas of debate or controversy. The introductory chapter within this edition provides a discussion of the law’s understanding of ‘family’ and the extent to which this has changed over time, a detailed overview of the meaning of private and family life within Article 8 of the ECHR, and a discussion of the Family Justice Review and subsequent developments. Part 1 of this edition, supplemented by the ‘Latest Developments’ section, outlines the most up-to-date statistics on the incidence of marriage, civil partnerships and divorce, discusses recent case law on the validity of marriage such as Hayatleh v Mofdy [2017] EWCA Civ 70 and K v K (Nullity: Bigamous Marriage) [2016] EWHC 3380 (Fam), and highlights the recent Supreme Court decision (In the Matter of an Application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] 1 WLR 519) on the pension rights of unmarried cohabitants. It also considers the litigation concerning the prohibition of opposite-sex civil partnership registration from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWCA Civ 81 to the important decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Application) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) [2018] UKSC 32. This edition also provides an in-depth discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41 regarding the grounds for divorce and includes discussion of Thakkar v Thakkar [2016] EWHC 2488 (Fam) on the divorce procedure. Further, this edition also considers the flurry of cases in the area of financial provision on divorce such as Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 722; TAB v FC (Short Marriage: Needs: Stockpiling) [2016] EWHC 3285; FF v KF [2017] EWHC 1903 (Fam); BD v FD (Financial Remedies: Needs) [2016] EWHC 594 (Fam); Juffali v Juffali [2016] EWHC 1684 (Fam); AAZ v BBZ [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam); Scatliffe v Scatliffe [2016] UKPC 36; WM v HM [2017] EWFC 25; Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306; Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408; Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270, and Birch v Birch [2017] UKSC 53. It also considers the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38 concerning post-divorce maintenance obligations between former partners, and the Privy Council decision in Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 relating to the joint name purchase by a cohabiting couple of investment property.Part 2 focuses on child law, examining the law on parenthood and parental responsibility, including the parental child support obligation. This edition includes discussion of new case law on provision of child maintenance by way of global financial orders (AB v CD (Jurisdiction: Global Maintenance Orders)[2017] EWHC 3164), new case law and legislative/policy developments on section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (parental orders transferring legal parenthood in surrogacy arrangements), and new cases on removing and restricting parental responsibility (Re A and B (Children: Restrictions on Parental Responsibility: Radicalisation and Extremism) [2016] EWFC 40 and Re B and C (Change of Names: Parental Responsibility: Evidence) [2017] EWHC 3250 (Fam)). Orders regulating the exercise of parental responsibility are also examined, and this edition updates the discussion with an account of the new Practice Direction 12J (on contact and domestic abuse), and controversial case law addressing the tension between the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and the protected interests of a parent in the context of a transgender father’s application for contact with his children (Re M (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 2164). Part 2 also examines the issue of international child abduction, including in this edition the Supreme Court’s latest decision, on the issue of repudiatory retention (Re C (Children) [2018] UKSC 8). In the public law, this edition discusses the Supreme Court’s clarification of the nature and scope of local authority accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Williams v London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37). In the law of adoption, several new cases involving children who have been relinquished by parents for adoption are examined (Re JL & AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption),[2016] EWHC 440 (Fam) and see also Re M and N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage) [2017] EWFC 31, Re TJ (Relinquished Baby: Sibling Contact) [2017] EWFC 6, and Re RA (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Final Hearing)) [2016] EWFC 47).

scholarly journals KILKA UWAG DOTYCZĄCYCH POWOŁYWANIA CZŁONKÓW ZARZĄDU SPÓŁEK KAPITAŁOWYCH

2016 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 23
Author(s):  
Aleksandra Gawrysiak-Zabłocka
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Capacity ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Company Directors ◽  
The Law ◽  
Polish Code

SOME REMARKS ON THE APPOINTMENT OF COMPANY DIRECTORSSummaryThe article discusses selected issues concerning the appointment of company directors. In the first part the focus is on the practical application of Art. 18 of the Polish Code of Commercial Companies (Kodeks spółek handlowych, KSH), which provides that only natural persons having full legal capacity and not convicted for crimes or offences mentioned in that provision can be members of a company’s board of managers. In the light of the inconsistent rulings handed down by the Polish Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) it is not clear whether the registering court, which has information available from the National Criminal Register (Krajowy Rejestr Skazanych), may refuse to enter a resolution which has been passed at a shareholders’ meeting but is in breach of the law. In my opinion, the first premise in the ruling handed down by seven Supreme Court judges on 18 September 2013 (case III CZP 13/13) is flawed. Not only does it contradict the Supreme Court decision of 24 July 2013 (case III CNP 1/13), but also its consequences can hardly be reconciled with the consequences of the second premise. In the second part of the study I use the provision on the composition of a brokerage board to show that specific regulations may prove ineffective if they only give cursory attention to an issue, with no reference to what is stipulated by the KSH.

scholarly journals Analisis Yuridis terhadap Kasus Gugatan Perbuatan Melawan Hukum atas Ketidakabsahan Peralihan Hak Milik Benda Bergerak (Studi Kasus Putusan Mahkamah Agung Nomor 1081/K/PDT/2018)

Kosmik Hukum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Fathalya Laksana
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Analysis Method ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Analytical Research ◽  
The Law

The legal requirements are regulated in Article 1320 of the Civil Code (KUHPerdata). If the valid conditions of the promise are not fulfilled, then the law that results is that the agreement can be canceled or null and void. In the Court's practice contained in the Supreme Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018, there was a sale and purchase agreement between the Plaintiff's husband and the Defendant, the sale and purchase agreement was made by the Plaintiff's partner without the consent of the Plaintiff as his legal wife. Supreme Court Decision No. 1081K / PDT / 2018 stated that the sale and purchase agreement was invalid and null and void. Apart from that, in its decision, the Defendant's UN Supreme Court had committed an illegal act. The research method used is a normative juridical approach using secondary data obtained from literature studies, namely statutory regulations, legal theories, and the opinions of leading legal scholars. This research uses descriptive analytical research specifications that describe the regulations that are in accordance with legal theories that oversee the implementation practices of the problems under study. The data analysis method used is qualitative normative method. Based on the research results, it can be denied that the sale and purchase agreement in the Supreme Court Decision Number 1081K / PDT / 2018 is not legally valid. The agreement does not fulfill the validity requirements of the agreement in Article 1320 of the Civil Code, namely halal skills and causes because it violates Article 36 paragraph (2) of the Marriage Law No. 1 of 1974 resulting in the sale and purchase agreement to be null and void.Keywords: Buying and Selling, Acts against the Law, Agreement, Marriage, Collective Property

16. Illegality

2019 ◽  
pp. 622-640
Author(s):  
Robert Merkin ◽  
Séverine Saintier
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Sexual Morality ◽  
Exclusive Dealing ◽  
The Law ◽  
Restraint Of Trade

Course-focused and comprehensive, the Textbook on series provides an accessible overview of the key areas on the law curriculum. This chapter examines contracts that are tainted by illegality or otherwise contrary to public policy, and how illegality affects the parties’ positions following the hugely influential Supreme Court decision of Patel v Mirza. A contract may be illegal from the beginning or illegality may arise as a result of statute (for example, express statutory prohibitions). Examples of illegal contracts are those intended to commit crimes or contracts prejudicial to sexual morality. As a general principle, illegal contracts cannot be enforced and benefits conferred in the performance of an illegal contract cannot be recovered. There are some exceptions, however, such as where the parties are not in pari delicto (not equally guilty), or where the claimant can establish his right to the money or property transferred without having to rely upon the illegal contract. This chapter also examine the law’s treatment of contracts in restraint of trade, including exclusive dealing and exclusive service agreements.

Complete Land Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Bogusz ◽  
Roger Sexton
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Land Law ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials

Complete Land Law: Text, Cases, and Materials Abstract: Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. Complete Land Law combines clear commentary in relation to land law with essential extracts from legislation and cases. A wide range of extracts are included, providing convenient and reliable access to all the materials needed. This edition features discussion of the latest case law in the area including: Wood v Waddington on the scope of s62 LPA 1925, Regency Villas Title Ltd v Diamond Resorts (Europe) Ltd on whether sporting and recreational rights can be an easement, the use of clear visible signs to prevent the acquisition of a prescriptive easement in Winterburn v Bennett, and Birdlip v Hunter on building schemes. There is an account of the Supreme Court decision in Edwards v Kumarasamy on the scope of ‘exterior’ in relation to repairing covenants in leases.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Prisons and Jails: An Assessment and a Proposal

1995 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 309-327
Author(s):  
Jack E. Call ◽  
Charles Samarkos
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
Free Exercise ◽  
The Law ◽  
Religious Freedom Restoration Act ◽  
The Impact

In November of 1993, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was signed into law by the President. Its purpose was to overrule a 1990 Supreme Court decision and require government to satisfy a compelling interest test when its laws or actions place a substantial burden on an individual's exercise of personal religious beliefs. This article explores the impact of RFRA on prisons and jails. Since there was a failed effort in Congress to exempt prisons and jails from the strictures of RFRA, there is no question that RFRA applies to these institutions. The article begins by explaining the law on the free exercise of religion prior to RFRA. Then the provisions of RFRA and its legislative history are explored briefly. An assessment is made of the likely effect of RFRA on prisons and jails and its constitutionality. The article concludes with a recommendation for amending RFRA designed to insure that the free exercise rights of inmates are adequately protected, while not unduly hampering the ability of corrections administrators to run their prisons and jails safely and efficiently.

Leading Decisions of the Supreme Court of Israel and Extracts of the Judgment

1997 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 754-802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omi
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Human Dignity ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
District Court ◽  
Conditional Release ◽  
Basic Law ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Of Israel

Ganimat v. The State of Israel (1995) 49(iv) P.D. 589.The appellant was indicted in the Jerusalem Magistrate Court for two incidents of car theft. His detention was requested on the grounds that he posed a “danger to society”. The Magistrate Court agreed to his arrest, holding that a custom has been established whereby custody may be justified in crimes which have become “a nationwide scourge”, including car theft. The District Court rejected the appeal. The appellant was granted permission to appeal the decision in the Supreme Court (decision of Dorner J. and Barak J.; Cheshin J. dissenting) and his conditional release was ordered. However, it was decided to hold Special Proceedings in order to discuss some of the important issues raised by the case. The principal constitutional question raised by the case was whether the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Liberty influences the interpretation of the existing law, in the present case, the law of arrest as regulated by the Law of Criminal Procedure.

scholarly journals Legal Protection For Brand Right Owner Famous For His Brand Immediate

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 222-229
Author(s):  
Chris Anggi Natalia Berutu ◽  
Sheila Elfira ◽  
Monica Sheren Tambuwun ◽  
Ericson Sebastian Sitohang
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Existing Data

Brand equality can cause harm to brand owners. Therefore, the legal protection of trademarks is very important. In this study, the authors will analyze the Supreme Court Decision No. 7K/pdt.sus-HKI/2016 whose purpose is that the consequences of the law of imitation of famous brands can be known and know the legal protection for owners of well-known brands if their brands are imitated. This research is descriptive and classified as normative legal research and uses existing data. Based on research, the famous brand ST. REGIS belonging to the plaintiff entered the list of registrants in Indonesia first, therefore the defendant's mark REGIS@the Peak at Sudirman has been registered with unfavorable conditions. The defendant's mark is essentially the same as the plaintiff's mark for similar and dissimilar services, as a result, the defendant's mark must be removed from the general register of marks. According to the law, Sheraton Internasional as the owner of the famous ST.REGIS brand won against REGIS@ the Peak at Sudirman.

scholarly journals The functions and failings of the Abortion Supervisory Committee: A Critique of the New Zealand Supreme Court Decision in Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Emma Jane Smith
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Majority Judgment ◽  
The Law ◽  
Minority View

<p>In 2012 the Supreme Court of New Zealand ruled on Right to Life New Zealand Inc v The Abortion Supervisory Committee. The case was brought by way of application for judicial review, with Right to Life New Zealand Inc arguing that the Supervisory Committee had made an error of law in interpreting its functions under the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977. A majority of the Court held that the Supervisory Committee does not have the power to review decisions made by certifying consultants in individual cases. However, both the text and the purpose of the Act support the minority view, that the Supervisory Committee must seek information about individual cases in order to fulfil its functions under the Act. It appears that the majority judgment was motivated by policy concerns due to an arguable change in Parliamentary intent since 1977. The majority should have acknowledged the policy values that guided its decision or accorded with the minority view rather than straining the statutory wording. Either of those actions would have better prompted Parliament to reform the law to reflect modern circumstances.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document