Background: Golan Rahamim pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to offenses arising from two planned incidents committed with another person, including demanding property by threats, burglary, theft, impersonating a public employee, obtaining property by fraud, motor-vehicle theft, driving while disqualified, and driving without a license. In the first incident, the men went to the home of…
Held: The Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Justice Alex Stein, joined by Justices Daphne Barak-Erez and Ruth Ronnen, held that the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of repeated, jointly planned offenses targeting older victims in their homes. The Court emphasized that impersonating police officers not only terrorized and harmed the complainants but also damaged public trust in the police.
Background: The underlying litigation concerns alleged crude-oil spills from pipelines, wellheads, and associated infrastructure in Nigeria’s Niger Delta between 2011 and 2013. Members and representatives of the Bille and Ogale communities allege that the spills contaminated water sources and destroyed mangrove forests. This case-management decision concerned only the Bille community and individual claims against Shell plc…
Held: Mrs Justice Lambert held that the claimants did not require permission to advance the primary all-spills case because it was not a material departure from the case historically advanced and complied with the prior order requiring proper particulars of causation. The Court of Appeal had understood that the claimants relied on systemic failures and on spills that might not be…
Background: SCI Ra-immo hired Hanny to construct a building. In January 2020, the property company sent Crédit lyonnais a certified progress-payment statement and an invoice for €189,893.14 identifying Hanny’s genuine account at Société générale. Two days later, SCI Ra-immo forwarded an email purportedly from Hanny stating that the original account was inactive and directing future payments,…
Held: The Court of Cassation upheld the rejection of the claim concerning the first transfer. The lower court was entitled to find from the successive emails that SCI Ra-immo had instructed the bank to make that payment to the Santander Totta account. Because the bank executed the transfer in accordance with the unique identifier supplied by its customer, the exclusive liability…
Background: Four siblings became embroiled in litigation following the deaths of their mother, Indriaty Purwada, and father, Purwanto. The claimants alleged that their brother, Arianto Purwada, had misappropriated assets held in bank accounts of which one or both parents were joint account-holders. Arief Purwada, acting personally and as administrator of both estates, sought records from UBS…
Held: The High Court held that Order 11 rule 11 does not provide an alternative route around banking secrecy. Section 47 of the Banking Act establishes the exclusive regime governing disclosure of customer information, and a bank cannot be compelled to disclose such information unless an exception in the Act’s Third Schedule applies. Where an applicant relies on the bankers’ books…
Background: Jane Hart owned a 75% interest in a 3.89-hectare property at Austinville, Queensland, containing three residences. Tineke Ikpoza owned the remaining 25% and lived in one residence, known as House 1. Hart applied under the Property Law Act 2023 (Qld) for statutory trustees to be appointed to sell the whole property.
Held: Freeburn J appointed Glenn O'Kearney and Christine Stead as trustees for sale and vested the property in them on statutory trust for sale. After sale costs, settlement expenses and relevant third-party security interests, the net proceeds are to be paid 75% to Hart and 25% to Ikpoza. The Court reserved costs.
Background: Dan Clark developed a process, later branded “Toonlight,” that used gaming-engine technology to make two-dimensional images appear three-dimensional. Because Clark’s company, Moonray Studios Inc., was ineligible for a government research grant, the parties arranged for Heather Walker’s company, Yowza Animation Corp., to obtain the funding. Clark and Moonray’s staff became Yowza employees while developing Toonlight,…
Held: The Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiffs’ main appeal. The trial judge’s reasons were sufficient for appellate review, and the evidence supported the conclusion that the parties had not formed an enforceable joint venture. Their discussions never progressed beyond a broad proposal to divide profits equally and did not settle the essential terms necessary for a binding agreement. The parties’…
Background: San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District adopted a COVID-19 vaccination requirement in October 2021. Although BART found 70 employees potentially eligible for religious exemptions, it concluded that none could be accommodated without undue hardship. Employees who remained unvaccinated were required to retire, resign, or face termination.
Held: The Ninth Circuit affirmed. BART was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law because substantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that accommodating the six employees would not have imposed an undue hardship. Under the Supreme Court’s Groff standard, BART had to establish a substantial, excessive, or unjustifiable burden—not merely that alternatives such as masking and distancing were less…
Background: The municipality of Jelgava, Latvia, owned 51% of Jelgavas komunālie pakalpojumi SIA, a waste collection and treatment company; a private company owned the remaining 49%. In 2004, the municipality awarded that company a contract to provide municipal waste-management services through an in-house procedure without a competitive tender. The contract was scheduled to run through 2029.
Held: The CJEU held that the municipality’s award decision did not constitute an economic activity. Although providing municipal waste-management services is itself economic activity, the municipality was not offering goods or services for remuneration when it determined how those services would be organized. It was acting as the competent public authority under Latvian legislation implementing EU waste rules.
Background: After a bench trial, Christopher Lester was convicted of first-degree rape of a child, first-degree child molestation, first-degree incest, and second-degree incest. During the trial, a court employee told the trial judge about possible signaling between members of a victim-witness advocacy group and testifying witnesses. The judge did not disclose the allegation to the parties,…
Held: The Court of Appeals held that the trial court violated the appearance of fairness doctrine by failing to disclose the witness-signaling allegation during trial. A reasonably prudent and disinterested person could question the court’s impartiality because the judge received information bearing on witness testimony, assumed the advocacy group would not improperly signal witnesses, and kept the allegation from the parties…
Background: After Terry Cannon II acknowledged paternity in 2003, the Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement Agency initiated administrative support proceedings in 2008. It sent hearing notice by certified mail to a Cincinnati address; the mailing was returned unclaimed. The agency then sent notice by ordinary mail to the same address and entered an administrative support order,…
Held: The First District reversed and remanded. It held that the juvenile court committed plain error by declining to determine whether Cannon was properly served at an address where he lived or could reasonably have been expected to receive mail.
Background: Jeremy Holmes, proceeding without counsel, appealed from the Circuit Court for Orange County, where Judge Greg A. Tynan presided. The appeal proceeded under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2), which governs certain appeals from summary postconviction orders.
Held: The Sixth District Court of Appeal affirmed the circuit court’s ruling without further analysis. Judges Stargel, Wozniak, and Pratt concurred in the per curiam decision.
Background: M.V. Investments Ltd. and Moshe Weinberg own rights in Tel Aviv real estate containing a residential building. In 2018, they entered into a combination agreement with Pegasus Holdings Ltd. Following a dispute, the petitioners purported to terminate the agreement and sued Pegasus for damages. That action was dismissed after the court held that the termination…
Held: The High Court unanimously dismissed the petition without requesting a response. Even assuming that no application for permission to appeal was available, the High Court does not sit as an appellate tribunal over trial-court decisions. It may intervene in judicial decisions only in exceptionally rare circumstances, such as lack of jurisdiction or extreme arbitrariness, neither of which was present here.