Latest news with #legal system
Arabian Business
an hour ago
- Business
- Arabian Business
Dubai updates dispute resolution and conciliation law
Dubai has updated dispute resolution and conciliation laws in the emirate. In his capacity as Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice President and Prime Minister of the UAE, has issued Law No. (9) of 2025, amending specific provisions of Law No. (18) of 2021 governing the regulation of conciliation frameworks for dispute settlement in the emirate. The law replaces ten articles from the original legislation and is part of Dubai's ongoing efforts to modernise its legal system and enhance the efficiency and quality of judicial services for all members of society. Article 5 of updated Dubai law The law outlines categories of disputes that must undergo conciliation efforts before proceeding to litigation. These include: Disputes referred by the President of Dubai Courts Personal status disputes Cases where both parties agree to refer the matter to the Centre for Amicable Settlement of Disputes (CASD) Lawsuits referred to CASD based on a prior agreement between the litigants Certain disputes are excluded from mandatory conciliation, including: Interim orders and urgent cases Matters of guardianship, inheritance, and marriage/divorce verification Disputes beyond Dubai Courts' jurisdiction Disputes where conciliation is prohibited under existing laws However, the Inheritance Court retains the right to propose settlement in inheritance-related disputes. Article 6 of updated Dubai law Article 6 of the law addresses the scope of dispute resolution procedures before the CASD and the Family Guidance and Reconciliation Committee. Disputes submitted to CASD through Dubai Courts' electronic system will be reviewed by a Conciliator under the supervision of a Competent Judge Personal status disputes are handled by the Family Guidance and Reconciliation Committee, following procedures set by the President of the Judicial Council The CASD and Family Committee may engage experts to provide technical input, with scope, fees, and deadlines clearly outlined If a conciliation is reached, a Conciliation Agreement is signed, approved, and granted the force of a writ of execution once validated. Additional provisions of the new law, include: Article 27 of Law No. (9) of 2025 outlines the requirements for approving a Conciliation Agreement and validating the executory formula. Once requirements are confirmed, the Conciliator approves the agreement and applies the executory formula. Challenges must be based on fraud or deception, filed within five business days A Competent Judge will issue a final ruling within five business days Copies of the agreement are only provided to parties involved; second copies require a court order The law will be published in the Official Gazette and enter into force upon publication. The amendments support Dubai's broader aim to enhance its legal ecosystem by promoting amicable dispute resolution, strengthening contractual and business relationships, expediting case resolution, and ensuring confidentiality throughout the process.
South China Morning Post
3 hours ago
- Politics
- South China Morning Post
In no rush to judge: Malaysia's rulers leave out naming new justices
Malaysia 's rulers ended a key meeting on Wednesday without naming new senior judges, prolonging a leadership vacuum at the top of the judiciary that experts warned could damage public trust in the country's legal system. Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim had earlier said the country's rulers were expected to make a 'clear announcement' on the appointment of a new chief justice on Wednesday, after mounting public criticism over alleged executive interference in the selection of judges. 'The issue regarding appointments was discussed in the meeting,' read a statement released by the national palace on Wednesday after the Conference of Rulers concluded the second day of its three-day meeting. The discussion covered appointments of the chief justice, president of the court of appeal, chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak and senior judges at the federal, appellate and high courts, the statement added. The national palace did not indicate if any decisions were made. Malaysian Bar Council members hold placards during a rally near the prime minister's office in Putrajaya on Monday to protest against the delay in appointing the country's top judges. Photo: AFP The Conference of Rulers is a gathering of the country's nine royal houses, which typically meet three times a year to discuss current affairs and issues of public interest.
Fox News
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Diddy, Johnny Depp, Kevin Spacey's legal victories expose critical flaw in #MeToo prosecutions: experts
Sean "Diddy" Combs, Kevin Spacey and Johnny Depp's legal victories have established that the #MeToo movement was a "wrecking ball" on the legal system as prosecutors failed to collect convictions in those high-profile cases. Celebrity status became an advantage for these public figures when entering the courtroom and facing a jury of their peers, experts told Fox News Digital. After seven weeks of trial, Diddy was found not guilty of sex trafficking – one of the most serious accusations the rapper had been facing. Spacey was acquitted in his high-profile London trial stemming from allegations that he had assaulted four men, while Depp won $10 million in his defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard. The #MeToo Movement has proven to be a "reckoning" in the court of public opinion but a "wrecking ball for the American legal system," branding expert Doug Eldridge told Fox News Digital. "Initially, it provided exposure, disinfectant, and justice for decades of criminal behavior in Hollywood. However, the tidal wave of claims – many of which turned out to either be false, or simply lacking evidentiary support – caused an over-correction across the legal system that was akin to jerking the steering wheel the moment your tires begin to slip on ice. It gradually became emotion over evidence, and that is antithetical to jurisprudential standards in America." "The court of public opinion is an angry mob; a court of law is a jury of your peers. The latter requires evidence, a burden of proof, and a presumption of innocence, while the former often conflates an accusation with a conviction. In the height of the #MeToo era, these were all lacking and over a long enough timeline, Americans – men and women alike – begun to realize and eventually rebel against this." "It gradually became emotion over evidence, and that is antithetical to jurisprudential standards in America." Depp was awarded $10 million in 2022 after a jury found Heard defamed him. The jury decided it was clear the "Aquaman" star was referring to Depp when she wrote an opinion piece about being a victim of domestic violence. The "knee-jerk public reaction" to allegations of sexual assault or harassment isn't prevailing, as we've seen the jury become the "true arbiter" on the outcome in court, entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell explained to Fox News Digital. "The novelty of the #MeToo movement and fear of guilt through mere accusation is over," he said. "The public is now as sensitive to abusive extortion tactics by incredible opportunists as it is to legitimate claims by real victims. The courts and juries have maintained the status quo and been the true arbiter in deciding sex crimes, staving off and being unaffected by knee-jerk public reaction." Spacey sobbed outside the courthouse after being found not guilty. "I imagine that many of you can understand that there's a lot for me to process after what has just happened today," Spacey said at the time, according to the Daily Mail. "But I would like to say that I'm enormously grateful to the jury for having taken the time to examine all of the evidence and all of the facts, carefully, before they reached their decision." The sexual acts the "House of Cards" star was accused of had reportedly occurred between 2001 and 2013. They ranged from unwanted touching to aggressive crotch-grabbing and, in one instance, performing oral sex on an unconscious man. The lack of convictions on A-listers could be because "jurors love celebrities," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital. "It doesn't matter if it's a civil or criminal case," he said. "They do better than ordinary Joes. And prosecutors like going after celebrities to make a name for themselves, cash out and leave the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney's Office for a high-paying gig. The same applies to civil plaintiff's lawyers. They prefer suing celebrities to regular people because of the publicity and the fact that they have lots of money and can pay a judgment. And with that celebrity money comes the ability to pay the best and brightest lawyers in the game." "Celebrity cases are tough to win, because you have a well-liked defendant who may be the target of an aggressive prosecutor or civil plaintiff's lawyer, and who has unlimited funds to assemble a dream team. Lawyers think they can steamroll them like their other defendants, but they can't because of the difference in resources and the innate advantages celebrities have. Trials often come down to liability and credibility, and celebrities have the upper hand, because jurors love them. That is why they are tough to take down inside a courtroom." "Trials often come down to liability and credibility, and celebrities have the upper hand, because jurors love them. That is why they are tough to take down inside a courtroom." The latest celebrity wins in criminal court – Diddy and Harvey Weinstein – show that the #MeToo Movement has taken a "serious hit," Rahmani noted. "#MeToo may not be dead, but after the Diddy verdict and Harvey Weinstein retrial, the movement has taken a serious hit," Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said. "Prosecutors are expected to win always, and they're going to be hesitant to file more cases against celebrities." Weinstein's retrial concluded June 11, a little over a year after his 2020 conviction was overturned. The former film producer was acquitted on a criminal sex act charge while the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Weinstein's rape charge. Weinstein was again convicted of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley, a production assistant. While Diddy scored a win with an acquittal on his sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges, the rapper still faces up to 20 years behind bars. The jury found Combs guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution on July 2. His sentencing hearing has been set for Oct. 3, and prosecutors have recommended the music mogul serve between four and five years in prison. To keep a handle on public opinion during a high-profile celebrity trial, lawyers have turned to working alongside PR representatives to ensure an intact career. "There have been many instances where, despite an innocent ruling in the court of law, the public was not so forgiving, and a person's career was severely impacted or put to an end," Steve Konig, PR expert and owner of The Honig Company, told Fox News Digital. "During a trial, all sorts of damaging information is revealed and, regardless of the eventual ruling, it is next to impossible to remove this information from the minds of the public. Recognizing this, we're seeing a lot more instances of attorneys working closely with public relations professionals and crisis managers to try and render an innocent ruling in both the court of law and the court of public opinion."
Fox News
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Fox News
Diddy, Johnny Depp, Kevin Spacey's legal victories expose critical flaw in #MeToo prosecutions: experts
Sean "Diddy" Combs, Kevin Spacey and Johnny Depp's legal victories have established that the #MeToo movement was a "wrecking ball" on the legal system as prosecutors failed to collect convictions in those high-profile cases. Celebrity status became an advantage for these public figures when entering the courtroom and facing a jury of their peers, experts told Fox News Digital. After seven weeks of trial, Diddy was found not guilty of sex trafficking – one of the most serious accusations the rapper had been facing. Spacey was acquitted in his high-profile London trial stemming from allegations that he had assaulted four men, while Depp won $10 million in his defamation case against ex-wife Amber Heard. The #MeToo Movement has proven to be a "reckoning" in the court of public opinion but a "wrecking ball for the American legal system," branding expert Doug Eldridge told Fox News Digital. "Initially, it provided exposure, disinfectant, and justice for decades of criminal behavior in Hollywood. However, the tidal wave of claims – many of which turned out to either be false, or simply lacking evidentiary support – caused an over-correction across the legal system that was akin to jerking the steering wheel the moment your tires begin to slip on ice. It gradually became emotion over evidence, and that is antithetical to jurisprudential standards in America." "The court of public opinion is an angry mob; a court of law is a jury of your peers. The latter requires evidence, a burden of proof, and a presumption of innocence, while the former often conflates an accusation with a conviction. In the height of the #MeToo era, these were all lacking and over a long enough timeline, Americans – men and women alike – begun to realize and eventually rebel against this." "It gradually became emotion over evidence, and that is antithetical to jurisprudential standards in America." Depp was awarded $10 million in 2022 after a jury found Heard defamed him. The jury decided it was clear the "Aquaman" star was referring to Depp when she wrote an opinion piece about being a victim of domestic violence. The "knee-jerk public reaction" to allegations of sexual assault or harassment isn't prevailing, as we've seen the jury become the "true arbiter" on the outcome in court, entertainment lawyer Tre Lovell explained to Fox News Digital. "The novelty of the #MeToo movement and fear of guilt through mere accusation is over," he said. "The public is now as sensitive to abusive extortion tactics by incredible opportunists as it is to legitimate claims by real victims. The courts and juries have maintained the status quo and been the true arbiter in deciding sex crimes, staving off and being unaffected by knee-jerk public reaction." Spacey sobbed outside the courthouse after being found not guilty. "I imagine that many of you can understand that there's a lot for me to process after what has just happened today," Spacey said at the time, according to the Daily Mail. "But I would like to say that I'm enormously grateful to the jury for having taken the time to examine all of the evidence and all of the facts, carefully, before they reached their decision." The sexual acts the "House of Cards" star was accused of had reportedly occurred between 2001 and 2013. They ranged from unwanted touching to aggressive crotch-grabbing and, in one instance, performing oral sex on an unconscious man. The lack of convictions on A-listers could be because "jurors love celebrities," former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told Fox News Digital. "It doesn't matter if it's a civil or criminal case," he said. "They do better than ordinary Joes. And prosecutors like going after celebrities to make a name for themselves, cash out and leave the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney's Office for a high-paying gig. The same applies to civil plaintiff's lawyers. They prefer suing celebrities to regular people because of the publicity and the fact that they have lots of money and can pay a judgment. And with that celebrity money comes the ability to pay the best and brightest lawyers in the game." "Celebrity cases are tough to win, because you have a well-liked defendant who may be the target of an aggressive prosecutor or civil plaintiff's lawyer, and who has unlimited funds to assemble a dream team. Lawyers think they can steamroll them like their other defendants, but they can't because of the difference in resources and the innate advantages celebrities have. Trials often come down to liability and credibility, and celebrities have the upper hand, because jurors love them. That is why they are tough to take down inside a courtroom." "Trials often come down to liability and credibility, and celebrities have the upper hand, because jurors love them. That is why they are tough to take down inside a courtroom." The latest celebrity wins in criminal court – Diddy and Harvey Weinstein – show that the #MeToo Movement has taken a "serious hit," Rahmani noted. "#MeToo may not be dead, but after the Diddy verdict and Harvey Weinstein retrial, the movement has taken a serious hit," Rahmani, founder of West Coast Trial Lawyers, said. "Prosecutors are expected to win always, and they're going to be hesitant to file more cases against celebrities." Weinstein's retrial concluded June 11, a little over a year after his 2020 conviction was overturned. The former film producer was acquitted on a criminal sex act charge while the jury was unable to reach a verdict on Weinstein's rape charge. Weinstein was again convicted of sexually assaulting Miriam Haley, a production assistant. While Diddy scored a win with an acquittal on his sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges, the rapper still faces up to 20 years behind bars. The jury found Combs guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution on July 2. His sentencing hearing has been set for Oct. 3, and prosecutors have recommended the music mogul serve between four and five years in prison. To keep a handle on public opinion during a high-profile celebrity trial, lawyers have turned to working alongside PR representatives to ensure an intact career. "There have been many instances where, despite an innocent ruling in the court of law, the public was not so forgiving, and a person's career was severely impacted or put to an end," Steve Konig, PR expert and owner of The Honig Company, told Fox News Digital. "During a trial, all sorts of damaging information is revealed and, regardless of the eventual ruling, it is next to impossible to remove this information from the minds of the public. Recognizing this, we're seeing a lot more instances of attorneys working closely with public relations professionals and crisis managers to try and render an innocent ruling in both the court of law and the court of public opinion."
CTV News
3 days ago
- General
- CTV News
Sudbury group to create videos to help trafficking survivors navigate court system
Sudbury charity Angels of Hope has partnered with the southern Ontario organization Timea's Cause to create free videos in both English and French to guide human trafficking survivors through Ontario's legal system. The videos are expected to launch in 2027.
