The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a customary law obligation to provide „reasonable” reasons for judgment, stating that „the rendering of reasoned judgments in the eyes of the public is essential to the legitimacy of judicial institutions.” [46] Determining whether the reasoning of the judgment is appropriate is a contextual exercise that may require different information or depth of reasoning depending on the circumstances of the case. [47] In general, Canadian courts are expected to state reasons for judgment as a duty to the general public,[48] to prove that the judge(s) dealt with the parties` pleadings,[49] to explain why the parties won or lost,[50] and to allow for meaningful appellate review (if the matter is appealable). [51] For example, if a borrower fails to repay a loan or credit card debt, the lender or creditor may obtain a judgment to force the borrower to pay. As another example, a landlord who evicted a tenant for non-payment of rent could sue to collect the unpaid rent, and if the landlord wins the case, it would result in a judgment against the tenant. The requirements for judgments have many similarities and some differences between countries and legal systems. For example, while the civil law imposes a statutory duty to state reasons, the common law recognizes a contextual obligation to state reasons that depends on certain circumstances. The following section provides information on judgments rendered in different countries, as well as examples of how they cover other types of judgments, if any. The UK Supreme Court has stated that, in a relatively lengthy and costly hearing, it is important that the judgment (i) clearly identifies all the issues of fact in dispute and expert opinions, and (ii) clarifies all issues relevant to the judge`s legal opinion. and the issues that would be relevant if the judge`s legal opinion were found to be erroneous.
Otherwise, there is a real risk that a full or partial retrial will be ordered, bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. [77] In many cases, the successful party to a dispute does not have to take additional steps to enforce its rights under the judgment, as if the judgment had only property in the physical custody of the court. However, if a judgment imposes a personal obligation on one party towards another, the latter may have the possibility of resorting to various remedies provided by law to enforce its rights. If the judgment orders a party to do something other than paying a sum of money) or to refrain from any type of conduct, the court has full powers to punish contempt in order to ensure that its orders are enforced (see injunction). A decision of a court or other tribunal that settles a dispute and determines the rights and obligations of the parties. Summary judgment is a judgment rendered by a court or judge without a full trial. Any party to a dispute may seek summary judgment, provided that there is no disagreement on the merits of the case. This allows both parties to avoid the costs of a full procedure.
However, if a party requests summary judgment, the judge will always examine the facts in the light most favourable to the opponent. For this reason, most parties to a lawsuit avoid summary judgment unless they believe the law is firmly on their side. A default judgment is a decision of a court or judge that greatly favours one party in a dispute due to a default by the opposing party. Typically, this occurs when a party fails to appear in court or fails to meet the deadline for presenting its case. With rare exceptions, judgments in absentia are fully binding and extremely difficult to overturn. The prevailing party may receive immediate payment from the losing party based on judgment and requires no further action. A successful party who does not receive immediate payment must initiate enforcement proceedings to recover the money or property to which it is entitled under the judgment. [27] [28] [29] Once this proceeding is initiated, the prevailing party may be designated as the judgement creditor, whereas in North America, the losing party is referred to as the debtor.
[27] [30] Questions of a court`s jurisdiction to decide a case are in most cases determined by the details of each country`s judicial structure. In general, small courts are not allowed to hear cases involving more than one fixed amount. In addition, inheritance, family and criminal cases are often dealt with exclusively by specialized courts. For the winner of a lawsuit, a court decision is only the first step to getting the money owed to him. In fact, collecting money from the debtor can be a long, tedious and not always fruitful process. However, judgments are legally enforceable. If the debtor does not pay the judgment voluntarily, the creditor may take steps such as writing a cheque from the debtor, seizing bank accounts, seizing a lien on the debtor`s property, or appointing a collection agent. n. an order of the court that there are no more substantive issues to be heard and that, therefore, one or all of the pleas of a complaint may be decided without judicial proceedings on the basis of certain facts. Summary judgment is based on an application by one of the parties that all necessary questions of fact have been clarified or are so one-sided that they do not need to be heard. The application is based on affidavits, excerpts from affidavits, factual confessions and other discoveries, as well as a legal argument (points and case law) that there are no tribal issues in fact and that the clarified facts require summary judgment for the applicant. The other party will respond with counter-statements and legal arguments that attempt to show that there are „triviable questions of fact.” If it is not clear whether there is a question of fact in a plea, the summary determination on that ground must be answered in the negative.
The theory behind summary judgment is to eliminate the need to clarify clarified questions of fact and to decide one or more grounds in the complaint without trial. Oral arguments are extremely technical and complicated and are particularly dangerous for the party against whom the application is brought.