Sale & Attachment of Property in Execution Decree

This function of the law, ensuring reasonable predictability in daily life, is challenged within this case. This is shown within the case, from the perspective of being the owners of

The appellants complain that the tax court fail to apply debt-equity principles. The secondary inquiry cannot be reached unless the first question concerning whether an economic

A writ of execution applies to a debtor’s nonexempt real or personal property wherever located.

The Plaintiff’s estate was sequestrated in Federal Magistrates Court on May 12 2009, for failure to pay Council court costs [10]. An application by the Plaintiff for an extension in time to appeal this sequestration was

(2) Tamanaha, Brian. 2008. “Law”, Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History, St. John's Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-0095. Link in Course Readings and Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1082436&rec=1&srcabs=1012051

7. Court’s Order: As a result of this holding the court has established sufficient law entitles P to have her case heard before trial court.

Your managing partner has handed you the Supreme Court of Queenslands’ decision in The Public Trustee of Queensland and Anor v Meyer and Ors [2010] QSC 291 and asked you to answer the following questions. You should assume you are answering questions for someone who has not read the case, so be sure to provide sufficient detail in your answers. You do not need to provide reference details for Part A of the assignment.

[a] conveyance of real property or an interest in real property or a mortgage or deed of trust is void as to a creditor or to a subsequent purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice unless the instrument has been acknowledged, sworn to, or proved and filed for record as required by law.

Clegg case is the most recent and instructive dissertation on this vexed issue. The presiding judge, Justice Hoeben, referred to the previous case of Kilpatrick. There Foster J indicated that the obligations of the Tribunal are clearly satisfied if, in approaching the question of excessiveness, it has regard to matters in paragraphs (a) and following, in

THIS CAUSE having come on to be heard before the Court upon the Wife’s Complaint for Divorce, and the Husband’s Counter Complaint for Divorce, and the Court having scheduled a Final Hearing for June 17, 2012, and the parties and their respective counsel having appeared before the Court on said date, and the parties having established residency during the Final Hearing,

Imposes an Obligation, Denies a Right, or Fixes Some Legal Relationship – Final Judgment/Agency Order

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

The classical view that 'no mens rea, no crime' has long ago been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have created severe punishments even where the offences have been defined to exclude mens rea. Therefore, the contention that Section 37 (1) fastens a heavy liability regardless of fault has no force in depriving the forfeiture of the character of penalty.

In the statement, it is mentioned that the great strength of the common law lies in its capacity to develop to meet the changing needs and circumstances of the society in which it functions. A case to illustrate this point would be W v Registrar of Marriages [2013] HKCFA 39 (CFA).

develops into a commentary on the majesty of the law, the status of judges who must