Law Reports

Full transcripts of proceedings and full rulings are available for all listed cases, via a freedom of information request (under the 2016 Freedom of Information Act).

0004 - James Reginald Frisch in re Constitution of the Republic of Mcarthia

CASE IN REM

Heard on 14/02/2017 in the Central Court of the Republic of Mcarthia by Justice McCarthy.

Petition for action available here.

_____

It is contended that that the reference to section (8) subsection (d), made in that same subsection of the Constitution, should be considered to refer to section (8) subsection (c).

0003 - Kit McCarthy in re Law of the Republic of Mcarthia

CASE IN REM

Heard on 22/01/2017 in the Central Court of the Republic of Mcarthia by Supreme Justice Eden.

Petition for action available here.

_____

1. It is contended that it is the role of Parliament to repeal intermicronational statutory instruments in all cases. An instrument cannot be repealed without a successful Parliamentary motion.

2. It is contended that the approval of the President, is, like with any other legislation, required before an instrument can be repealed.

3. It is contended that the only further requirements for repeal are any that may be stated in the instrument itself.

0002 - Kit McCarthy in re General Judicial Act of 2016

CASE IN REM

Heard on 22/11/2016 in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mcarthia by Supreme Justice Eden.

1. Under what circumstances may the Judiciary of Mcarthia hear cases with central events that occurred out with Mcarthian jurisdiction?

2. May foreign citizens submit and have heard lawsuits against Mcarthian citizens in Mcarthian courts regarding events either international or domestic?

3. May Mcarthian citizens be required to recognise, accept, and comply with the decisions of the Mcarthian courts regarding actions in which the victim or driving party is not a Mcarthian citizen?

4. If international cases are heard in the Mcarthian Courts, the law of which nation should be used?

Questions stated in full due to absence of petition for action.

_____

1. It is contended that it the right of the Judiciary of Mcarthia to hear cases out with Mcarthian jurisdiction provided the interests of a Mcarthian citizen within a Mcarthian context have been affected, it takes place between two Mcarthian citizens outside of Mcarthia, or the jurisdiction has otherwise authorised Mcarthia to do so. It is not the right of the Judiciary to intervene in international cases unless there is a demonstrable effect insofar as either the national interest of Mcarthia or the Mcarthian interests of one of our citizens has been negatively afflicted.

2. It is contended that foreign citizens can bring suit against Mcarthian citizens if a Mcarthian citizen has committed an offence against them under Mcarthian law.

3. It is contended that if a citizen of Mcarthia has committed an offence against a foreign citizen under Mcarthian statute, they are obliged to recognize, accept and comply with the decisions of the courts of Mcarthia in the same way as though they were being tried for a crime or civil offence against a Mcarthian citizen.

4. It is contended that the Judges of Mcarthia should try, insofar as they can, to apply the relevant national statute.

0001 - Dallin Langford v. John Houston

CIVIL ACTION

Validity Review

Heard on 30/11/2016 in the Supreme Court of the Republic of Mcarthia by Supreme Justice Eden.

In response to the nominal sentence of death passed by the Loquntian courts, it is contended that these actions bring the case within the remit of the Mcarthian judiciary, as these actions constitute a potential infringement on Mr Langford's 'Mcarthian interests.' As a result, the actions of the Loquntian Supreme Court as a state actor represented in the respondent can be considered actions between two Mcarthian actors, and it is therefore contended that the Judiciary of Mcarthia has the authority to preside over this matter.