Historical Sexual Abuse Claims Dating From The 1970 ' S

This is a 2000 word RBI on Article 92 (Failure to obey order or regulation) and Article 86 (Absence without leave)

took place will be determined and explained as well as the penalties associated with this case will

shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, Suit in equity, or other proper

Intentional infliction of emotional distress - the Court states that because Texas law places a duty on Briles and McCaw, the Plaintiff 's negligence claim will fill any gaps.

Judge Tracey had regard to Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority, in relation to issues with the construction of statutes. The case proposed that in order to define the purpose of a legislation, the extent and aim of the whole statute and the language of the relevant provision should be taken into consideration. Similarly, in “The Engineers Case” the court stated that the language of a statute should be examined in its ordinary and natural sense in order to understand the intent of Parliament behind making it.

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

The first section of the Charter embodies two capacities that are vital to the definition and interpretation of the ‘reasonable limits clause.’ Section one “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it” as well as stating that the criteria for limiting a person’s rights and freedoms must be “prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

Upon the filing of this petition, an order was issued Upon the respondent to show cause why a writ of prohibition should not issue, and be made perpetual and a further order that the record of the proceedings had the criminal cause be certified and transmitted to the Supreme Court. The first section of the statue enacts that all railway companied caring passengers in their coaches in their passenger train, or by dividing the

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

As requested, I have reviewed the facts of the above-captioned file, along with the applicable law and summarized same in this memorandum. Mrs. Mary Smith suffered an injury to her right ankle in an automobile accident on 10/3/95. After surgery and months of rehabilitation, Mrs. Smith still suffers daily. I have researched the facts regarding a personal injury action against Paul Joseph, as well as a medical malpractice action against the medical providers.

The courts gave limits to the application of section 49(2) by giving that the proof lies on the person or accused (arrester) depending on the guardians of section 49(2), to show that his or her action fell in the that particular section. The state had to show proof the root of the offence committed goes beyond a sensible uncertainty.

a) There must be a person accused of an offence. The word ‘offence’ is to be understood in the way as it has been used in the General Clauses Act, 1897 which means, “ an act or omission made punishable by an law for the time being in force”

The case demonstrates the right of individuals to be free from unlawful interference from the executive and that the executive cannot act without authority – exclusion

Mr. Fali S. Nariman advanced an argument with respect to the interpretation of the Constituent Assembly Debates. In these debates, Mr. Shibban Lal Saksena, a member of the Constituent Assembly moved an Amendment No. 1590 on 19.05.1949 to provide for a similar provision as that of Section 8(4) of the Act, but was not passed. It was argued that since a provision like S.8(4) was not incorporated in the Constitution when it was framed, such a provision could not have been made pursuant to Articles 102(e) and 191(e) of the Constitution.