Latest news with #plaintiff
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Politics
- Malay Mail
If Anwar's constitutional questions are preposterous, absurd and legal nonsense, let the court say it — Hafiz Hassan
JUNE 6 — Cornell Law School offers an insightful read on qualified immunity. It says that qualified immunity is a type of legal immunity that protects a government official from lawsuits alleging that the official violated a plaintiff's rights, only allowing suits where officials violated a 'clearly established' statutory or constitutional right. A plaintiff is the party who sues in a civil suit. A defendant is the party sued. It says further that qualified immunity balances two important interests—the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. (Emphasis added) When determining whether a right was 'clearly established,' courts in the US consider whether a hypothetical reasonable official would have known that the defendant's conduct violated the plaintiff's rights. Courts conducting this analysis apply the law that was in force at the time of the alleged violation, not the law in effect when the court considers the case. Qualified immunity is not immunity from having to pay money damages , but rather immunity from having to go through the costs of a trial at all. (Emphasis added) Accordingly, courts must resolve qualified immunity issues as early in a case as possible, preferably before discovery. Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials' actions. (Emphasis added) Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials. Does qualified immunity apply to a prime minister in Malaysia? That's the constitutional question proposed to be referred by Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for a ruling by the Federal Court. Some, even from the legal fraternity, have vilified Anwar and his legal team for the proposed constitutional questions which have been called preposterous, absurd and 'legal nonsense'. But if they are such, let the court having the ultimate authority say it.
Khaleej Times
6 days ago
- Business
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Landlord ordered to pay Dh125,000 after failing to deliver rental property
A homeowner has been ordered to pay a tenant Dh125,000 after failing to deliver a residential property despite receiving the full rent amount. The payment had been transferred, at the landlord's request, to his minor son's account, but the property was never handed over as agreed. The ruling was issued by the Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Claims. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to recover the amount he had transferred to the homeowner's son's bank account, based on the father's instructions, according to local media Emarat Al Youm. The plaintiff claimed he had entered into an agreement to rent a home owned by the defendant for an annual fee of Dh125,000. However, after receiving the money, the defendant failed to fulfill the agreement and later denied the existence of any deal, prompting the plaintiff to request the court administer a decisive oath. The court prepared to administer the oath in the following form: 'I swear by Almighty God that I do not owe the plaintiff the amount of Dh125,000, and God is my witness to what I say.' But the defendant failed to attend the hearing, which the court interpreted as an unwillingness to take the oath. As the case resumed, the court decided to summon both parties for further questioning. During the session, the plaintiff clarified that the arrangement was a promise, not a formal rental contract. The defendant said there was no rental relationship and that the money never entered his account. Still, he acknowledged the plaintiff's claim and asked to pay the amount in installments due to financial hardship. The court found that the defendant had not explicitly denied the plaintiff's claims or the submitted evidence and had even requested to repay the money, which the court viewed as an acknowledgment of debt. Moreover, his absence during the oath session was considered a refusal to swear under oath, further supporting the plaintiff's position. In its final ruling, the court ordered the defendant both personally and as the legal guardian of his minor son to pay Dh125,000 to the plaintiff, in addition to covering all court fees and legal expenses
Khaleej Times
29-05-2025
- Business
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Man loses Dh27,000 after WhatsApp screenshots fail to prove car purchase
A man who filed a lawsuit to recover Dh27,000 he paid for a car has had his case dismissed by the Abu Dhabi Family, Civil, and Administrative Claims Court. The court found he failed to provide clear evidence of a legal sale, especially since the vehicle was mortgaged to a bank and later taken back by the seller while the man was outside the UAE. According to the court documents reported by Emarat Al Youm, the buyer claimed to have paid Dh16,265 via bank transfer and Dh10,735 in cash after agreeing on a price with the seller. He said the seller promised to transfer ownership, but later discovered the car was under a bank loan. When he returned from travel, he found the car had been taken back. The court found that the man's WhatsApp screenshots, an unclear copy of the vehicle registration, and six untranslated bank transfers were not sufficient to prove a formal agreement. It stated that the bank transfers did not by themselves prove a sale and described the plaintiff's claims as "unsupported and unsubstantiated." The court also rejected his demand for Dh5,000 in compensation for damages and loss of income, saying there was no evidence of a mistake or wrongdoing by the seller. Since there was no confirmed sale and no legal responsibility proven, the court dismissed the case and ordered the plaintiff to pay all legal costs.
Khaleej Times
21-05-2025
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Motorist crashes into young girl on e-scooter, ordered to pay Dh20,000 in damages
A man who hit a young girl with his car, injuring her and damaging her electric scooter, has been asked to pay her guardian Dh20,000 in damages. According to local media organisation Al Khaleej, a lawsuit was filed by the girl's father who demanded Dh45,000 for causing physical and emotional harm and damaging her scooter. He claimed the defendant acted negligently and recklessly by failing to slow down near a pedestrian crossing, which led to the collision. Court documents revealed that the defendant had already been convicted in a previous criminal case related to the incident. The plaintiff supported his claim with a copy of that judgement and confirmation that no appeal had been filed in the criminal case. The defendant said that the claim should be rejected on procedural grounds. He said the matter falls under an insurance dispute since the claim was based on the car's insurance policy. He also requested that the insurance company be added to the case. However, the Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Claims court emphasised that the defendant had been criminally convicted for endangering the girl's physical safety and damaging her property due to negligence. The court found all elements of civil liability fault, damage, and causation clearly present. The ruling stated: 'The injuries to the plaintiff's daughter and the destruction of her electric scooter constitute material damage, in addition to the emotional distress of fear and anxiety caused by the incident.' After reviewing the circumstances, the court determined that Dh20,000 was an appropriate amount to compensate for both material and moral damages.
Khaleej Times
20-05-2025
- Business
- Khaleej Times
UAE: Woman ordered to repay Dh153,000, fined Dh20,000 for false job promises
A UAE court has ordered has ordered a woman to repay Dh153,000, along with a fine of Dh20,000 in compensation to another woman after she failed to secure employment for the plaintiff, in return for the money she received. The Al Ain Court for Civil, Commercial, and Administrative Claims found that the defendant accepted the amount from the plaintiff under the promise of arranging employment opportunities for her and several family members. However, she neither fulfilled this promise nor returned the money, prompting the plaintiff to take legal action, as reported by local media outlet Alkhaleej. The plaintiff supported her case with bank transfer receipts and screenshots of phone conversations, which showed that she had transferred the funds directly to the defendant. She initially demanded the return of Dh153,000 along with Dh47,000 in compensation for damages. A court-appointed expert concluded that the defendant admitted to receiving the money to secure jobs through a third party. When that party failed to deliver, the defendant did not return the money. Although she attempted to settle by offering Dh50,000 and requesting more time to pay the rest, the plaintiff rejected the offer. Based on the expert report and evidence presented, the court ruled that the defendant was liable to repay the full amount and awarded the plaintiff Dh20,000 in compensation for the harm caused.
