- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 9 years ago by
.
- Posts
Please can you let me know what happens in this instance:
‘decision claimed to be against the public policy of the claimant’s state’
If it’s against the public policy and that can positively be shown to be the case, then the ICA will not enforce their decision
The problem is where it is in one state and not in the other. Does this mean that somebody that actually won their case can then not be entitled to what they were awarded when this is later proved?
I did see a question on this, I will try to find it when I go over them again.
The problem arises when only one state is signed up to the agreement.
If they’re both signed up, there should be no difficulty in sorting out the problem. And if, in sorting out the issue, it becomes apparent that the defaulter would have to go against public policy of his own state, then instead he would likely be required to compensate the innocent state
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.