Litigation and Alternative Dispute Resolution


An injunction is an order issued by a judge that forces a person or entity to perform an action or stop taking certain action. Generally, Indiana law requires the moving party to prove several elements before granting an injunction. Specifically, the moving party must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: a reasonable likelihood of success at trial; the remedies at law are inadequate; the threatened injury to the movant outweighs the potential harm to the nonmoving party; and the public interest would not be disserved by granting the requested injunction. Cent. Ind. Podiatry, P.C. v. Krueger, 882 N.E.2d 723, 727 (Ind. 2008). A hearing must be held to obtain an injunction. In emergencies, a court can issue a temporary restraining order that prohibits or requires action without notice to the non-moving party. These emergency orders are much more limited in duration than injunctions, which require notice. To obtain an injunction, the Court will require the moving party to give security to safeguard against a wrongful injunction being entered. This security can be paid into the Court in cash, or the moving party can obtain a bond or some other form of financial security to protect the non-moving party. A permanent injunction is typically only entered after a trial on the merits.

Read more: What Is An Injunction?


Limitation Act (NSW)

The Limitation Act 1969 (NSW) (the Act) governs the length of time after which actions to recover debts can no longer be commenced. Where the period has expired the debt is referred to as ‘statute-barred’.

There are many different types of contracts under which debts may arise. They include fixed term loans (such as personal loans), credit card contracts, home loans and contracts for the purchase of goods such as hire-purchase agreements.  The type of contract under which the debt arises is critical in determining whether a 6 year or a 12 year limitation period applies.

Unsecured vs secured debts

Agreements to loan money or provide credit often include an arrangement whereby the lender can realise property of the borrower if the borrower defaults on their obligations. This property is knows as security, and the debt will be classed as a secured debt. A mortgage is a common form of security. Where the debt is unsecured, a claim to recover the debt must be commenced within 6 years from the date that debt first became due (section 14 of the Act), which will usually be the date the borrower defaulted.

Read more: Is my claim for the debt statute-barred?


Important steps have been taken in the resolution of disputes through arbitration in Turkey, in order to incentivize parties to include arbitration clauses into their agreements. Especially with the establishment of the Istanbul Arbitration Centre ("ISTAC"), parties have been informed on the resolution of disputes through arbitration, and have been encouraged to include arbitration clauses into the agreements they conclude. Within this context, new laws and regulations have been adopted in order to facilitate the inclusion of arbitration clauses by public authorities and institutions.

A current development in arbitration, pertaining to the possibility to include an arbitration clause in agreements concluded under Public Procurement Contracts Law numbered 47351, is analyzed in this article.

Read the entire article.


Author: Tilbe Birengel

Introduction
Cost allocation in international arbitration is a significant concern for the parties of the dispute, as well as a debated topic among the practitioners and the scholars. The costs associated with arbitration may be grouped as procedural and parties' costs1. While procedural costs may be illustrated as fees and expenses of the arbitrators, in addition to the administrative expenses of the arbitration institution, the party costs consist of fees and expenses incurred due to a party's presentation of its case before the arbitral tribunal2.
The Methods for Allocation of Costs
In terms of cost allocation, international arbitration practice has broad flexibility. There is no uniform approach towards the division of costs among the parties of the dispute; hence, the discretion of arbitral tribunals is remarkably divergent in this field. Although this variance appears to create obscurity in costs allocation at first glance, there are three approaches that are commonly used by the practitioners, which are: the Costs Follow the Event; the Apportionment of Costs and the American Rule.

Read the entire article.


Contact: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a trial court’s decision prohibiting a Fort Wayne television station from broadcasting the trial court’s audio recording of a criminal sentencing hearing. This decision addresses a topic that has been a subject of national debate—cameras in the courtroom. Because this case touches on such a hotly debated topic, it is worth pointing out that some of the Court of Appeals’ reasoning does not stand up to scrutiny. While the Court of Appeals’ concerns about publicizing trial court proceedings may provide a sufficient reason to prohibit the broadcast, the practice of many courts undermines the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that there is no difference between allowing WPTA-TV to record the proceedings and allowing WPTA-TV to make a court’s recording publicly available.

Read more: Cameras in the Courtroom?