<?xml version="1.0"?>
<oembed><version>1.0</version><provider_name>Ma&#xEE;tre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p&#xE9;nal &#xE0; Paris</provider_name><provider_url>https://kohenavocats.com/zh-hans/</provider_url><author_name>Ma&#xEE;tre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p&#xE9;nal &#xE0; Paris</author_name><author_url>https://kohenavocats.com/zh-hans/</author_url><title>Meyer v Baynes</title><type>rich</type><width>600</width><height>338</height><html>&lt;blockquote class="wp-embedded-content" data-secret="mNC9ra0qbQ"&gt;&lt;a href="https://kohenavocats.com/zh-hans/jurisprudences/meyer-v-baynes/"&gt;Meyer v Baynes&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;iframe sandbox="allow-scripts" security="restricted" src="https://kohenavocats.com/zh-hans/jurisprudences/meyer-v-baynes/embed/#?secret=mNC9ra0qbQ" width="600" height="338" title="&#x300A; Meyer v Baynes &#x300B;&#x2014;Ma&#xEE;tre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p&#xE9;nal &#xE0; Paris" data-secret="mNC9ra0qbQ" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" class="wp-embedded-content"&gt;&lt;/iframe&gt;&lt;script&gt;
/*! This file is auto-generated */
!function(d,l){"use strict";l.querySelector&amp;&amp;d.addEventListener&amp;&amp;"undefined"!=typeof URL&amp;&amp;(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&amp;&amp;!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret="'+t.secret+'"]'),c=new RegExp("^https?:$","i"),i=0;i&lt;o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i&lt;a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&amp;&amp;(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3&lt;(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r&lt;200&amp;&amp;(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&amp;&amp;(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&amp;&amp;n.host===r.host&amp;&amp;l.activeElement===s&amp;&amp;(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r&lt;s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);
//# sourceURL=https://kohenavocats.com/wp-includes/js/wp-embed.min.js
&lt;/script&gt;
</html><description>lord kitchin: 1. This appeal gives rise to two issues: i) whether the Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (Antigua and Barbuda) erred in finding that the defence advanced by the appellant, Mr Meyer, to the claim by the respondent, Mr Baynes, did not amount to exceptional circumstances within the meaning of rule 13.3(2) of the Eastern...</description></oembed>
