logo
#

Latest news with #injunction

Judge chastises Trump administration in Voice of America hearing
Judge chastises Trump administration in Voice of America hearing

Washington Post

time5 days ago

  • Politics
  • Washington Post

Judge chastises Trump administration in Voice of America hearing

In a hearing Monday to determine the future of Voice of America, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth scolded the government for not complying with his preliminary injunction from April. Lamberth lamented the 'paucity' of information provided by the Trump administration about how it is complying with the statutory obligations for running Voice of America and its parent, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, as ordered in an April injunction.

Parliament's former bell-ringer to pay damages for ripping out neighbour's gate
Parliament's former bell-ringer to pay damages for ripping out neighbour's gate

Telegraph

time18-06-2025

  • Business
  • Telegraph

Parliament's former bell-ringer to pay damages for ripping out neighbour's gate

Parliament's former bell-ringer has been ordered to pay £10,000 in damages after ripping out the gate of a retired banking boss's home. Adrian Udal, 65, demolished the roller gate and door of Nicholas Partick-Hiley's £2 million house on Disbrowe Road in Fulham, west London, in August 2023, the day the former executive moved into the property. Mr Udal, who served as secretary of the belfry at St Margaret's Church, a building that acts as the church for the Houses of Parliament, claimed his actions were an assertion of his rights as the owner of the passage that connects the neighbours' homes. Mr Partick-Hiley has successfully sued for an injunction against Mr Udal, citing 'security concerns' in the street. The judge ruled that Mr Partrick-Hiley had the right to cross the passageway and drive to get to his house, despite it being owned by Mr Udal, who has lived in his property for more than 30 years. Mr Partick-Hiley, a former Panmure Gordon Securities executive, 64, bought the house with the intention of transforming it into a retirement home for him and his wife, Lisa. 'Maximum disruption and distress' Mayor's and City County Court heard that Mr Udal was supposedly involved in a dispute with the previous owner of the home, which was his motive for removing the gate after he found out the property was being sold. Mark Warwick KC, representing the Partrick-Hileys, told Judge Parfitt: 'On the day of completion, Mr Partick-Hiley arrived at the property at about 12.10. 'He was astonished to find Mr Udal and another man... in the process of destroying the door and gate. They were also disconnecting wiring that connected the property to various services.' Mr Warwick told the court that Mr Udal's actions were intended 'to cause maximum disruption and distress'. He added that the Partrick-Hileys had contacted Mr Udal two months before the move, explaining that they planned to install 'more functional gates', but would welcome Mr Udal's input on the new gates' style and design. But the couple claimed their new neighbour bought his own set of metal barriers before they moved in. He installed them in Sept 2023 after ripping out the original gate. 'Unneighbourly conduct' Aaron Walder, Mr Udal's barrister, told the court that the original gate had 'trespassed' on his property. But Judge Nicholas Parfitt KC found that the gates Mr Udal removed were in the correct position and that the Partick-Hileys had a right 'to pass and re-pass either on foot, or with or without vehicles' down the drive and passage. He said: 'Mr Udal's actions in respect of the roller gates and furniture was an inappropriate and wrongful act of wanton destruction… [it was] conduct which any reasonable and objective person should have realised would cause considerable upset and discomfort to the new owners.' The judge went on to award damages for 'unjustifiable and unneighbourly and upsetting conduct, directly related to the claimants' enjoyment of their new property, which the defendant inflicted on them by choice'. Mr Udal, is also predicted to have to pay the trial's legal costs, which are predicted to be six-figures.

Court dismisses NewJeans' appeal against injuction ruling
Court dismisses NewJeans' appeal against injuction ruling

CNA

time18-06-2025

  • Entertainment
  • CNA

Court dismisses NewJeans' appeal against injuction ruling

On Tuesday (Jun 17), the 25-2 Civil Division of the Seoul High Court dismissed an appeal filed by members of K-pop girl group NewJeans against a previous court ruling to prohibit their independent activities. In November last year, NewJeans unilaterally ended their contracts with South Korean music label Ador, citing workplace harassment and other issues. The group then proceeded to carry out numerous independent activities. In January this year, Ador applied for an injunction against NewJeans that would prohibit members of the quintet from signing advertising contracts independently. On Mar 21, the Seoul Central District Court granted this injunction. Days later, following the group's performance at the pop culture convention ComplexCon Hong Kong, the members of NewJeans declared that the group will go on a hiatus to respect the court's ruling. Last month, the Seoul Central District Court announced that it had accepted Ador's application for an indirect compulsory enforcement – a type of penalty imposed for not complying with a court order – against NewJeans. As such, the court declared that each NewJeans member will have to pay 1 billion won (US$727,180) for every unauthorised activity performed from here on out.

Judge blocks State Department from firing workers while injunction is in effect
Judge blocks State Department from firing workers while injunction is in effect

Washington Post

time13-06-2025

  • Politics
  • Washington Post

Judge blocks State Department from firing workers while injunction is in effect

A federal judge in San Francisco on Friday stopped Secretary of State Marco Rubio from proceeding with plans to downsize the State Department, saying that it was prohibited behavior under an injunction she issued last month. U.S. District Judge Susan Illston barred the Republican administration from carrying out much of its plans to reorganize and slash departments while she hears a legal challenge brought by labor unions and others. She said that President Donald Trump had failed to seek Congressional cooperation to do so when he ordered government-wide cuts. But, in late May, the State Department notified Congress of an updated reorganization of the agency that would cut programs and personnel even more deeply than previously revealed. Rubio this week also ordered U.S. embassies to fire all remaining staffers with the U.S. Agency for International Development . He said the State Department will take over USAID's foreign assistance programs by Monday. The Trump administration said Rubio had launched a reorganization of the State Department independently of the president's directive and so was exempt. Illston, who was nominated to the bench by former President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, was not convinced. 'If the State Department has any question about whether planned actions fall within the scope of the Court's injunction, the Court ORDERS the Department to first raise those questions with the Court before taking action,' she wrote in an order issued Friday. ___

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store