ELS - Sources of law - Consolidation MCQs Flashcards
Which one of the following suggested definitions best describes the concept of equity as it is used in the English legal system?
A body of rules which began in the 15th century.
A body of rules and principles designed to remedy the rigidity of the common law.
An application of the principles of fairness, designed to replace the common law.
A body of rules and principles which began in the Court of Chancery.
An area of law which provides discretionary remedies.
A body of rules and principles designed to remedy the rigidity of the common law.
Correct. This is effectively the original purpose and function of this branch of law. The other answers do not describe the essence or purpose of the law on equity as effectively
Which one of the following hypothetical situations best illustrates a judge distinguishing a precedent?
In a case currently being heard in the Supreme Court the justices have found on closer analysis that a precedent established several years ago in the Court of Appeal was based on an incomplete understanding of the material facts in that case. They therefore decide not to apply that precedent in the current case.
In a case currently being heard in the Supreme Court the justices consider that a precedent established by their predecessors over half a century ago in the old House of Lords should be revised, because it is no longer appropriate in today’s changed social and moral environment.
A High Court judge finds that a precedent set by the Court of Appeal in an old case does not apply to the current case under consideration.
In a current High Court case, the judge finds that the material facts, though similar in nature to that of an old Court of Appeal case which established a precedent on a particular point of law, are sufficiently different to justify not being bound by that precedent.
In a case currently being heard in the Supreme Court the justices consider that an old precedent established by the Court of Appeal was wrongly decided, and so do not apply it to the case under consideration.
In a current High Court case, the judge finds that the material facts, though similar in nature to that of an old Court of Appeal case which established a precedent on a particular point of law, are sufficiently different to justify not being bound by that precedent.
Correct. Note that the judge is the person responsible for assessing the extent and scope of the old precedent, as it should currently apply. This is very much a matter of judicial skill and the ability to vary the level of abstraction gives the judge a degree of freedom to depart from an old precedent if s/he considers it appropriate. The other answers do not show a correct or as clear an understanding of the relevant terminology used in the analysis of case law as this one does.
After a serious road traffic accident, the driver of the car who caused the accident faces a number of legal problems. Unfortunately, his careless driving has brought about the death of a young child and the parents wish to claim bereavement damages as well as to see the driver prosecuted.
Which of the following statements best describes the key features of the legal processes that are likely to be embarked upon?
The driver of the car will be prosecuted for the relevant offence by the Crown Prosecution Service but, if he pleads guilty at an early stage in proceedings, he will have the benefit of being sentenced in a Crown Court in front of a jury. He will also face a civil law claim in relation to his negligence and, if found on the balance of probabilities to be responsible, he will liable in damages.
The driver of the car will be sued in the civil courts by the parents and, if found guilty, on the balance of probabilities, he will be liable to them for bereavement damages. He will also be prosecuted for the relevant offence by the police and, if found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, will be sentenced by the court.
The driver of the car will be prosecuted for the relevant offence by the Crown Prosecution Service and, if found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, he will be sentenced by the court. He will also face a civil law claim in relation to his negligence and, if found on the balance of probabilities to be responsible, he will be liable in damages.
The driver of the car will be prosecuted for the relevant offence by the Crown Prosecution Service and, if found, beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, he will be sentenced by the court and be ordered to pay bereavement damages to the parents.
The driver of the car will be prosecuted for the relevant offence by the police and, if the parents so choose, they can call for him to be tried in the Crown Court in front of a jury. The driver will also face a civil law claim in relation to his negligence and, if found on the balance of probabilities, to be responsible, he will liable in damages.
The driver of the car will be prosecuted for the relevant offence by the Crown Prosecution Service and, if found beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty, he will be sentenced by the court. He will also face a civil law claim in relation to his negligence and, if found on the balance of probabilities to be responsible, he will be liable in damages.
Correct. Note the differing standards of proof in criminal and civil law and the other terminology associated with both. The other answers do not adequately describe the civil and criminal law processes and consistently refer to the correct terminology associated with both.
A corporate client of a large law firm alleges that negligence by the firm, when advising on a high value and complex case, has caused it to lose more than £500,000. It wishes to sue its solicitors, therefore, to recover this loss.
Which of the following courts and judges is the client company most likely to encounter in its proposed litigation, assuming that there is one appeal after the first instance trial?
It is likely that the initial procedural hearings will be heard in the County Court by a district judge who will then send the case up to the High Court for the trial. Any subsequent appeal will then be heard in Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
It is likely that the case will start in the Commercial Court section of the High Court. Any procedural hearings will be heard by a Master and then the first instance trial will be heard by a High Court judge, with any appeal going to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
It is likely that the case will start in the County Court, where any initial procedural hearings will be heard by a District Judge. The first instance trial will be heard by a Circuit Judge, with any appeal going to the High Court.
It is likely that the case will start in the High Court in the King’s Bench Division. Any procedural hearings will be heard by a Circuit Judge and then the first instance trial will be heard by a High Court judge, with any appeal going to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
It is likely that the case will start in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Any procedural hearings will be heard by a Master and then the first instance trial will be heard by a High Court judge, with any appeal going to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
It is likely that the case will start in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Any procedural hearings will be heard by a Master and then the first instance trial will be heard by a High Court judge, with any appeal going to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
It is likely that the case will start in the King’s Bench Division of the High Court. Any procedural hearings will be heard by a Master and then the first instance trial will be heard by a High Court judge, with any appeal going to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.
Which one of the following hypothetical situations best describes the most appropriate use of the leapfrog process?
A legally complex environmental nuisance case has recently been decided in the County Court in favour of the claimants. As the case has implications for a significant number of other industrial companies, the defendant company has applied to appeal directly to the Supreme Court because its directors consider that it engages a matter of significant public interest.
A professional footballer has been convicted in the Magistrates’ Court for drink-driving. He wishes to appeal on a technical legal matter relating to the interpretation of the relevant statute governing the offence. As he is very well-known and therefore the conviction is a very serious matter in relation to his career, he has applied for his case to bypass the High Court and be heard in the Court of Appeal.
After a controversial prosecution of a well-known businessman for fraud, he is sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years by the Crown Court. He wishes to appeal against his conviction and, because it is very likely that this matter will be contested as far as possible, permission is given for the appeal to bypass the Court of Appeal and to be heard by the Supreme Court.
A very complex clinical negligence case has been heard by the High Court, in which the medical evidence has been strenuously contested. The defendant health authority, which lost the case, and which faces liability for more than £5 million in damages, wishes to dispute the medical evidence. As it is highly likely that the matter will be appealed again by whichever side loses the appeal, the health authority applies for the case to be heard again in the Supreme Court.
A very complex clinical negligence case has been heard by the High Court. The defendant health authority, which lost the case, and which faces liability for more than £5 million in damages, wishes to dispute the legal basis on which the judgment was reached, as this involved a novel point of law and potentially has implications for numerous other health authorities. The health authority therefore applies for permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
A very complex clinical negligence case has been heard by the High Court. The defendant health authority, which lost the case, and which faces liability for more than £5 million in damages, wishes to dispute the legal basis on which the judgment was reached, as this involved a novel point of law and potentially has implications for numerous other health authorities. The health authority therefore applies for permission to appeal directly to the Supreme Court.
Correct. This is the correct leapfrog process, as it bypasses the Court of Appeal. It also involves an issue of law that is a matter of public importance. The other answers do not correctly or adequately describe the process.
Question 15
In the course of a trial various arguments are put to the judge as to the exact meaning of a particular section of a relevant statute. When deciding the case, the judge first looks at the natural ordinary meaning of the words used. However, such an interpretation of those words results in an absurd meaning being given to the section. The judge therefore, in coming to his decision, interprets the words in a different way which does not result in an absurd meaning.
What method of statutory interpretation has the judge used?
A. The literal rule.
B. The mischief rule.
C. The extrinsic evidence rule.
D. The golden rule.
E. The intrinsic evidence rule.
D - The golden rule.
To progress a case before the court, the correct interpretation of a section in a statute is required and the judge considers his options under the rules of statutory interpretation. He decides to use the mischief rule.
Which of the following best describes how the judge will use the mischief rule in interpreting the statute?
A. He will consider the defect in common law which caused Parliament to pass the statute.
B. He will select an interpretation of the statute which addresses any initial absurdity
C. He will refer to the record kept by parliamentary drafters who worked on the statute.
D. He will give to the words of the statute their ordinary and grammatical meaning.
E. He will make use of an academic textbook as an external aid to interpretation
A - He will consider the defect in common law which caused Parliament to pass the statute.
It has been disclosed in the press that the Secretary of State for Health (the SoS) has been involved in heated arguments with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because substantial cuts in the NHS budget are being threatened, and several thousand nursing staff may have to be made redundant. This matter is about to come to a head at the next Cabinet meeting when the final decision has to be made.
Which of the following statements best reflects how the SoS is able to act under the relevant convention and, if a final decision is made to make the cuts, what his realistic options would be?
Select one alternative:
Under the convention of collective ministerial responsibility, the Prime Minister is already under an obligation to sack the SoS, as the news that there is disagreement in Cabinet has leaked out.
The principle of collective ministerial responsibility does not apply in this situation because it is already public knowledge that there is disagreement in Cabinet and so the SoS can disclose details of the Cabinet discussions after the meeting.
Under the convention of individual ministerial responsibility, the SoS has to argue against the cuts because they would undermine the effectiveness of the department for which he is responsible, if implemented. However, if he loses the debate, he will be obliged either to accept the cuts and support them as a member of the government or to resign his ministerial role.
Under the convention of collective ministerial responsibility, the SoS is able to argue as strongly as he wishes against the cuts, as long as he does not later disclose the arguments in Cabinet externally. However, if he loses the debate in the Cabinet meeting, there will have to be a vote of no confidence in the government because of the extent of the disunity in Cabinet.
Under the convention of collective ministerial responsibility, the SoS is able to argue as strongly as he wishes against the cuts, as long as he does not later disclose the arguments in Cabinet externally. However, if he loses the debate, he will be obliged either to accept the cuts and support them as a member of the government or to resign his ministerial role.
Under the convention of collective ministerial responsibility, the SoS is able to argue as strongly as he wishes against the cuts, as long as he does not later disclose the arguments in Cabinet externally. However, if he loses the debate, he will be obliged either to accept the cuts and support them as a member of the government or to resign his ministerial role.
This question requires an understanding of the nature and extent of the convention on collective (as opposed to individual) ministerial responsibility. The key to it is to appreciate, firstly, that Cabinet discussions on the issue are intended to allow ministers to exchange their views and opinions openly but, equally, to maintain confidentiality of the matters discussed. Secondly, once a communal decision has been made, it is very important – in order to achieve confidence in government – for the ministers to maintain a united front, failing which there is a moral obligation on any openly dissenting minister to resign.
