Source: Bacharach Bacharach’s fixed and portable refrigerant leak detection systems provide organisations with complementary, proven solution for identifying low-level refrigerant leaks, reducing refrigerant emissions, and achieving best-in-class leak rate performance.Read more like this – subscribe todayEnjoyed this story? Subscribe to gasworld today and take advantage of even more great insights and exclusives in industrial gases.Visit www.gasworld.com/subscribe to access all content and choose the right subscription for you. The Pittsburgh-based company’s cloud-based software includes usage, tracking, and reporting for unlimited users, sites and refrigeration assets and is suitable for organisations looking to reduce refrigerant emissions.The enterprise-scale system tracks refrigerant usage, leak inspections, and leak events, as well as providing compliance reporting for EPA 608, CARB, F-Gas and GreenChill.Designed for facility managers and compliance officers who support multi-site organisations, the software is fitting for locations such as supermarkets, food processing plants, cold storage warehouses and hospitals, as well as smaller organisations.The software is supported by professional services from the Parasense Information Centre (PIC) team who provide services such as data importing, pro-active data review and recommendations, periodic report preparation, and contractor coordination for timely completion of inspections, repairs, testing, and record-keeping.
Christine Reeves v Beatrice Blake: CA (Civ Div) (Lords Justice Mummery, Moses, Etherton): 24 June 2009 Nicholas Isaac (instructed by Penman Johnson) for the appellant; Stephen Bickford Smith (instructed by Child & Child) for the respondent. Excavation – Nuisance – Party walls – Surveyors The appellant (R) appealed against a decision concerning the ability to provide for payment of legal costs under a party wall award. The respondent (B) owned a house, the flank wall of which abutted R’s driveway. B proposed to demolish the house and replace it with a new building. B served on R a notice under the section 1(5) of the Party Wall etc Act 1996 and a second notice under section 6(1). The first notice was served on the basis that B proposed to construct a new wall on the boundary with R’s driveway. The second notice was served because the level of B’s new basement would be substantially below the level of the foundations of R’s garage. The parties appointed surveyors who appointed a third. The third surveyor determined in an award that the first notice was invalid but that the second notice under section 6 was valid. B took the view that the award authorised works in respect of excavations and foundations and those works were begun on her instructions. R considered, correctly, that a further award was necessary before the works could proceed. She consulted solicitors who advised her to take High Court proceedings for an injunction. Counsel settled draft particulars of claim and draft witness statements were also prepared. B gave an undertaking not to carry out further work for the time being and no proceedings were ever begun. The surveyors then produced an award authorising the work to be carried out and directing B to pay R’s solicitors’ and legal fees in respect of the contemplated proceedings. On appeal to the county court, the judge ordered that the second award be varied by deleting the legal costs direction. R submitted that the surveyors had authority to give the legal costs direction in the second award under section 10(12)(c), under which an award might determine ‘any other matter arising out of or incidental to the dispute’, and section 10(13)(c), under which the reasonable costs incurred in ‘any other matter arising out of the dispute’ were to be paid to such of the parties as was determined by the appointed surveyor or surveyors. Held: In view of the nature of disputes referred to surveyors under the 1996 act and the wide wording of sections 10(1), 10(10), 10(12)(c) and 10(13)(c), there might be circumstances in which appointed surveyors had the power under section 10 to order payment by one adjoining owner of legal costs reasonably and properly incurred by another, Onigbanjo v Pearson  BLR 507 MCLC approved. The power to order payment of such costs was, however, restricted to costs connected with the statutory dispute resolution mechanism. As a matter of interpretation, the dispute mentioned in those provisions of section 10 was a dispute arising under the 1996 act. By contrast, proceedings in court to enforce common law or equitable remedies, such as damages or an injunction for trespass or nuisance or the threat of them, fell outside the 1996 act, as did preparations for such proceedings. The purpose of the 1996 act was to provide a mechanism for dispute resolution which avoided recourse to the courts. A power of the appointed surveyors under the 1996 act to make provision for costs incurred for the purpose of actual or contemplated litigation in court would be inconsistent with that statutory objective. The appointed surveyors had no power to grant common law or equitable relief for causes of action in trespass or nuisance, Woodhouse v Consolidated Property Corp Ltd  66 P & CR 234 CA (Civ Div) and Louis v Sadiq 59 Con LR 127 CA (Civ Div) considered. Those were the causes of action for the contemplated and threatened proceedings by R. Leaving aside the 1996 act, no one had suggested any example of parliament conferring on one or more persons, whether or not lawyers, power to make orders for payment of the costs of actual or contemplated litigation, where the court alone or some body other than those persons had the power to determine the substantive dispute. Further, in the ordinary way, no costs were recoverable by a party who prepared for litigation which was never instigated. Appeal dismissed.
For all the Latest Sports News News, Cricket News News, Download News Nation Android and iOS Mobile Apps. New Delhi: Mitchell Starc is considered one of the best bowlers in the international cricket circuit at this point. The left-arm pacer, who has taken 244 wickets in 57 Tests and 178 wickets in 90 ODIs, is now in contention for getting the ‘Husband Of The Year’ award. The reason – He is leaving the ongoing tour of South Africa and going back home to support his wife, Australia women wicketkeeper Alyssa Healy for the crunch final clash between Australia and India at the Melbourne Cricket Ground on International Women’s Day. The Australia Women’s Cricket Team are the four-time ICC Women’s World T20 champions and they are gunning for a fifth against an Indian outfit that is on the cusp of securing a historic first title.Alyssa Healy is one of the core players in the side and her contribution will be vital in the final. With Australia reaching the final and an expected crowd of close to 90,000 in attendance at the Melbourne Cricket Ground, it is a golden opportunity for Alyssa Healy to create glory and Starc does not want to miss out. In a report on ESPNCricinfo, Australia head coach Justin Langer said he was supportive of Starc’s decision to be with Alyssa Healy after Australia lost the two matches against South Africa in Benoni and Bloemfontein.”It’s a once-in-a-lifetime chance for Mitch to watch Alyssa in a home World Cup final and so we were happy to allow him to return home to support his wife and be part of a fantastic occasion. It is something we have been talking about for a while,” Langer said.Starc And Healy – Power CoupleWhen Australia reached the final of the 2015 ICC World Cup against New Zealand at the MCG, Alyssa Healy was present to give her husband support. Starc ended up taking the massive wicket of Brendon McCullum for 0 in the first over and he went on to become the highest wicket-taker in that edition of the tournament along with New Zealand pacer Trent Boult. In an interaction with the official Cricket Australia website, Starc said the occasion on March 8 will be fantastic for Alyssa Healy.Alyssa Healy has been in decent form in the ICC Women’s World T20 with two fifties. (Image credit: Getty Images)”They were extremely supportive … so I’m very appreciative for that and very grateful that I can go back and support Alyssa, much like she was around for our 2015 World Cup win. That was very special for all the boys to have their families involved so it’s a fantastic opportunity to repay that,” Starc said.The Australia Women’s Cricket Team, the current reigning and defending champions, started their campaign poorly when they lost to India by 17 runs but bounced back with wins against Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and New Zealand. In the semi-final against South Africa, they overcame the conditions and a spirited fightback from the Proteas as they held their nerve to win by five runs via the DLS method to enter the final for the sixth consecutive time. Alyssa Healy married Starc on April 2016 after getting engaged in 2015.Also Read | India Vs Australia, ICC Women’s World T20 Final: Preview, Prediction, Probable 11, Past Record And WeatherAustralia have lost the ODI series with losses in Benoni and Bloemfontein after winning the three-match Twenty20 International series 2-1. Australia have lost 10 out of their last 11 ODIs against South Africa and they now have a negative head-to-head record in ODIs only against the Proteas.