Private Law
Ehsan Bahramy; Mostafa Elsan
Abstract
In order to defend a frivolous claim, the defendant may suffer from numerous fees such as litigation and expertise costs, attorney's fees, etc. One of the important questions is whether the demand for such fees caused by a frivolous claim is subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. ...
Read More
In order to defend a frivolous claim, the defendant may suffer from numerous fees such as litigation and expertise costs, attorney's fees, etc. One of the important questions is whether the demand for such fees caused by a frivolous claim is subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. In response, the Iranian Law situation is not very clear; Because according to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, the security for costs order for frivolous claims, which is considered one of the ways to fee-shifting, is not subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. On the other hand, according to Article 515 of this Code, demanding fees from the plaintiff is generally subject to proving his bad faith. Along with the study of American Federal Law, resolving this ambiguity and conflict is the subject of this article. In this article, after explaining the concept of a frivolous claim, it is concluded that identifying the plaintiff's negligence (not his bad faith) is necessary for demanding fees caused by frivolous claims. In order to identify the plaintiff's negligence, some points must be considered: firstly, the negligence is identified according to the circumstances of the lawsuit. Secondly, the negligence of the pro se litigant or unrepresented party is measured by comparing him with the reasonable one and the negligence of the lawyer is measured by comparing him with the reasonable lawyer. Thirdly, as a rule, the pro se litigant or unrepresented party may not be considered negligent for filing a claim without a legal basis.
Private Law
Ehsan Bahrami; Sayyed Amin Pishnamaz; Amir Zare
Abstract
The claim is considered against the defendant when the court can consider the judgment against the defendant, assuming that the plaintiff's claim is true. This statement is effective in a lawsuit with the same respondent and defendant. However, its effectiveness in the claim against the deceased is questionable; ...
Read More
The claim is considered against the defendant when the court can consider the judgment against the defendant, assuming that the plaintiff's claim is true. This statement is effective in a lawsuit with the same respondent and defendant. However, its effectiveness in the claim against the deceased is questionable; because in this claim, the plaintiff's claim is against the deceased and the defendant is a person other than the deceased, ie his heir. Hence, the question is «how can we identify the claim against the heir in such a lawsuit?» In this article, an attempt is made to provide an answer to this question by the library and field methods. In this regard, by searching the opinions of Shia’h Jurisprudents, it is observed that they have considered some conditions necessary for the claim against the heir. In this article, while reviewing these views, which have been discussed below regarding the conditions for taking the oath to the heir, the hypothesis is strengthened and proved that the relationship between the conditions for being the claim against the heir and the conditions for taking the oath to him is general and peculiar in some respects meaning that by proving three conditions including death, remaining the estate, and the inheritance relationship between the decedent and the defendant, the claim is against the heir. In Iranian law, in addition to accepting the need to prove the foregoing conditions to be the claim against the heir, an inheritance certificate as a way to detect the death and the relationship of inheritance between the deceased and the defendant and the rules on acceptance and non-repudiation of inheritance as a way to detect remaining of the estate is identifiable.
