Intro Flashcards

Question

Taxation

Answer 1

Process which court would incur legal costs reasonably or not

Answer 2

- D owed C a duty of care to avoid causing the injury of which he complains - D breached the duty of care - D's Breach caused the damage complained by C - The damages complained by C was not too remote at law to be recoverable | D = Defendant C = Claimaint

Answer 3

Caparo Test - A reasonable foreseeability: Harm to C was actually foreseen - A requiste degree of proximity existed between C and D - Policy is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care | Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990]

Answer 4

Relying Upon an exisiting cetegoristation ie; matching the scenario to a distinct and recognisable situation

Answer 5

Generally, the Law does not require people to take action to prevent harm from occuring, even if they have the ability to do so However, a person has a duty to avoid causing harm through their own actions, they are typically not obligated to help others who are in need of assistance | Case example Stovin v Wise [1996]

Answer 6

The claimant was injured when he was knocked off his motorcycle by Wise at a road junction The visibility at the junction was impaired by a large bank The council bears no responsibility becuase the council had not actively place the bank of earth there meaning the had omission to remove it

Answer 7

subcontractor roofing tiles, specalistc sommerset 13 latent defect, break defect couldnt be detected house owners sued contractors indemnity on sub contractor implied term of quality chain of contracts

Answer 8

The relationship of cause and effect between one event or action and the result.

Answer 9

"A Reasonably competent solicitor" Bolam Principles

Answer 10

Causation is the action of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, in most cases injury Causation is arguably the most complex element of negligence and many judges can't quite agree on whether or not it is a notion of 'common sense'

Answer 11

- Causations are decided on the balance of probabilites - For example, if a court finds that there is a 51% chance that the defendant caused a claimants harm, they will hold the defendant entirely responsible for the harm - However, if a court finds that there is only a 49% chance that the defendant caused a claimants harm, they will not hold the defendant responsible for the harm.

Answer 12

Case example

Answer 13

A defense is an act of protecting one's own interests.

Answer 14

- Where any person suffers damage as the result is partly of his own fault - A partial defence

Answer 15

- No injury is done to the willing - A complete defence

Answer 16

- No action arises from ones own wrong doing - A complete defence

Answer 17

Case Study, outcome was not foreseeable | House of lords (equivelent of final appeal in hk)

Answer 18

- A legal principle that holds a person responsible for the full extent of the harm caused, even if the victim has vulnerability that makes them particularly fragile - Even if the harm seems minor or, disproportionate, the perpetrator is still liable for the full consequences.

Answer 19

1. the matter under dispute has a defamtory meaning 2. the defamtory matter is conveyed or communicated to a third party 3. the defamtory matter refers to a particular reason or company, (libel), (slander)

Answer 20

What do ther words mean if imputations are defamtory | Defence Absolute/qualfied privilege fair comment injunctions and damages