best law firms in Supreme Court of India – http://supremecourtindia.in/lawyers-want-to-appeal-brentwood-academy-case-to-supreme-court/. A fire occurred causing extensive damage. The House of Lords, upholding a decision by the first instance judge and the Court of Appeal, held that it cannot have been the parties’ intention that parties who were jointly insured under a contractors’ all risks policy could make claims against one another in respect of damage covered by the insurance, or that the insurers could make a subrogated claim best lawyers in Supreme Court of India the name of the owners against Hall, and that the court would if necessary hold that there was an implied term to such effect (which I infer in relation to Hall must logically have taken effect as an implied term of the collateral contract between itself and the owners).
Hall entered into a collateral contract with the owner warranting that it had exercised and would exercise all reasonable care and skill in the design and execution of the sub-contract works. Under its terms the contractor was required to take out and maintain a policy best law firms in Supreme Court India the names of the owner, the contractor and specialist electrical subcontractors, Hall, for all risks insurance covering loss or damage to the works from specified perils including fire.
In that case a building owner entered into a standard form of building contract for the construction of office premises. It cannot have been the parties’ intention that the charterer’s exposure to liability should be greater under clause 13, where cover against marine and war risks was to be maintained at the owner’s expense than under clause 12, where it was to be maintained at the charterer’s expense. The court can always ask itself what useful purpose continuing the proceedings, or taking a particular step in them, will serve but that is for the court, not the parties, to decide.
Case management along these lines does not mean that a care provider or funder can pre-empt the court’s proceedings by refusing to contemplate changes to the care plan. Accordingly, when one of Actavis’s products, say that containing pemetrexed dipotassium, is dissolved in saline, the solution contains pemetrexed anions and potassium cations plus sodium cations and chloride anions. By the safe port undertaking, the charterers did not assume responsibility for loss from every foreseeable risk at the port to which the ship was ordered.
Such expenditure is not a perquisite or profit, gratuity or incidental benefit for the reasons discussed above and only falls within the income tax regime because of special statutory provision, such as, currently, the “benefits code” in Part 3 chapters 2-11 of ITEPA, which cover among others the provision of living accommodation, cars or loans and the payment of expenses. advocates in Supreme Court India those circumstances, argues Lilly, even if pemetrexed dipotassium would not of itself infringe if it was administered with vitamin B12, at least provided that the ratio of sodium ions to pemetrexed ions was at least 2:1, there will be infringement when it is administered in saline solution, because the solution which is administered will contain pemetrexed disodium.
advocates in Supreme Court India so holding the House of Lords approved and applied the reasoning of Mr Recorder Jackson QC, as he then was, best advocates in Supreme Court India Hopewell Project Management Ltd v Ewbank Preece Ltd [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 448, 458, where he described it as nonsensical if those parties who were jointly insured under a contractors’ all risks policy would make claims against one another in respect of damage to the contract works. Longmore LJ put the point pithily when he described the exclusion of rights of recovery or subrogation in clause 13 as “a confirmation rather than a negation of such exclusion in the more usually adopted clause 12 for the longer term charters when it is the charterers who pay the premium” (para 88).
This raised the question whether Hall was liable to the owners in respect of the fire damage, alleged by the third party claimants to have been caused by Hall’s negligence and breach of warranty. The implied term presupposes, of course, that the party relying on it has not by his own conduct prevented recovery of the loss under the policy – a point made by Jackson J (as he had by then become) in Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery v Duffy Construction Ltd [2007] BLR 216.
Part 7 of ITEPA also has special rules for shares etc acquired in connection with an employment, and Part 6 of that Act is concerned with income which is not earnings or share-related. They assumed responsibility only for risks which were sufficiently regular or sufficiently foreseeable to amount to an attribute or feature of the port. It would be unnecessary to include equivalent words best advocates in Supreme Court India clause 12. Clause 13 therefore provides that the vessel is to be kept insured by the owners against marine and war risks, and that the owners and their insurers are to have no right of recovery or subrogation against the charterers on account of loss or damage covered by such insurance.
The reason why Lilly contends that, even if they did not directly infringe, the Actavis products would indirectly infringe is because, when they are supplied to a doctor or a pharmacist, they are, as Actavis would know, dissolved in a saline solution in order to enable them to be administered to patients. I cannot accept that such a proposition applies in relation to claims based on a defendant’s unlawful hacking and blagging of the phone records of individuals such as the 23 claimants in Frost v MGN.
The owners sued their architects and mechanical and engineering consultants, who brought third party proceedings against Hall. I accept that the courts must be careful before deciding that a particular case of this sort involves newsgathering whose nature is so extreme as to lie outside the territory which should be subject to the Rule. “(i) There was no breach of the safe port undertaking. As the Strasbourg court explained at para 201, its decision that the liability for costs in MGN v UK offended article 10 was based on the proposition that “the most careful scrutiny on the part of the Court is called for when measures taken by a national authority are capable of discouraging the participation of the press in debates over matters of legitimate public concern”.
Saline is a solution of common salt, ie sodium chloride, in water, and when common salt is dissolved in water, it separates into sodium cations and chloride anions. However, bearing in mind the persistence, pervasiveness and flagrancy of the hacking and blagging, and the lack of any public significance of the information which it would be expected to and did reveal, it appears to me that this is not a case where the Rule can properly be invoked by MGN.
A second circumstance, which falls outside the general rule, is where the employer spends money to confer a benefit in kind which the recipient cannot convert into money. BIMCO’s explanation for the optional alternative of clause 13 was that sometimes a vessel is bareboat chartered for only a short period and it may make sense for the owners to carry on with the insurances which they are likely to have in place.