Meaghan Richardson

The Applicant sought recognition and enforcement of an international arbitration award against the Respondent.

The Respondent opposed, arguing the Applicant was not a legal entity and lacked standing, and moved to dismiss or stay the application.

The Applicant brought a cross-motion to amend its name in the title of proceedings.

The court granted the Applicant's motion to amend its name, finding that the use of a shorter name in the commercial agreement was permissible under Luxembourg law and that the Applicant was the correct award recipient.

The Respondent's motion to dismiss or stay was dismissed.

The court then granted the Applicant's request to recognize the arbitration award, rejecting the Respondent's arguments regarding estoppel and the arbitrator's impartiality, noting that the impartiality challenge had already been unsuccessfully litigated before the arbitration administrator.

The plaintiff, a commercial landlord, moved for summary judgment against the defendants for breach of a lease agreement.

While the breach was undisputed, the live issues concerned damages and the defendants' counterclaim.

The court dismissed the motion for summary judgment, finding that genuine issues requiring a trial existed, particularly regarding the plaintiff's mitigation efforts and the defendants' counterclaim for premises maintenance issues.

The court determined that these issues involved conflicting evidence and credibility assessments that could not be fairly resolved on the motion record alone, necessitating *viva voce* evidence at trial.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment for damages arising from the defendants' breach of a real estate purchase agreement.

The defendants failed to close the transaction to purchase the plaintiff's property for $310,000.

The plaintiff relisted the property and eventually sold it for $260,000.

The court found that the plaintiff took reasonable steps to mitigate her damages and awarded $59,135.72, representing the $50,000 difference in purchase price plus carrying costs, legal fees for the aborted sale, and prejudgment interest.

The plaintiff brought a motion for summary judgment to recover $155,000 from three loans made to the corporate defendant and personally guaranteed by the individual defendants.

The plaintiff demanded repayment based on the defendants' failure to provide monthly financial statements, which had not been previously requested.

The court dismissed the motion, finding a genuine issue for trial regarding whether the plaintiff provided reasonable notice of default and whether the plaintiff's actions constituted a breach of contract.