Section B: The Law Of Tort 😈 Flashcards

Question

What is in Internal aids of interpretation ?

Answer 1

The aid needed approach a statutory interpretation can be found within the statute itself

Answer 2

Long titles - confirm purpose of statute through a simple definition Schedule - gives a more detailed clarification - unfair contact terms act Headings + marginalised notes - in order to clarify parliaments intentions (added during drafting the act ) Interpretation sections - offences and act that is broken is defined - theft act 1968 Preamble- outlines what the statute covers and it’s purpose

Answer 3

preamble- outlining what the statute covers and it’s purpose

Answer 4

Interpretation sections

Answer 5

When everything said in parliament my MPs is recorded

Answer 6

When mischief rule directed them to it

Answer 7

Hansard- (Davis V Johnson )Denning argues no use - griping around in the dark with no lights on Allowed use with words are ambiguous or leads to uncertainty When statements realised upon are clear Prev acts of parliament - and earlier case law Law reform reports from law commission International treaties Explanatory notes 📝- gov Dictionaries can be used- (Vaughan v Vaughan)

Answer 8

Any decision or judgement that doesn’t need to be followed

Answer 9

obiter dicta R v Wilson - GBH - dropped - had consented R v brown - consent- would have been legal if it was tattooing DPP v smith

Answer 10

Persuasive precedent RV R - can rape wife - given away Sc agreed with COA Influenced lead by judgment Offence of rape was included and available to husbands

Answer 11

obiter dicta Lower courts aren’t not binding but are persuasive Privy councils - In the courtroom three we can decide an appeal from All common wealth countries Dissenting judgement- judge disagrees with majority verdict

Answer 12

It’s when the judge doesn’t agree on the magority verdict They help persuade future cases as society develops Lord Denning in Caparo V Dickman helped condler v Crane Christmas his statement was relied on 40 years later in the case

Answer 13

In court room three Judges can decide on the appeal from all Commonwealth countries- Judges in the Supreme Court decide law that would be influenced by some issues around uk law

Answer 14

Paint or are the chemicals in the hair would’ve been ABH

Answer 15

It’s used to speculate and persuade

Answer 16

Distinguish it -Looking at what’s the difference so we see what facts are significantly different from the precedent E.g. Balfour v Balfour - Involved agreement between married couple to pay Wi-Fi husband was abroad no contract between them domestic parties no intention and Merriff v Merriff - Couple going through divorce has been agreed to pay with money describe distinguished from Balfour agreed to separate intention to make contract overruling- It’s when you change the previous precedent because they believe it’s wrong However you can only do a lower court decision and not your own precedent Also using Supreme Court - However you can use a practice statement to overall previous precedent invoking power Pepper V Hart of the Davis V Johnson Using Hansard

Answer 17

Overruled the case of R v Cordwell changed recklessness from an objective- would a reasonable person realise the risks to a subjective - did the defendant realise the risks ?

Answer 18

1- Supreme Court have already overboard their own precedent 2- If there are two conflicting court appeals you can choose one 3- per incuraim

Answer 19

Someone’s liberty is at stake overall a previous if the Lord misapplied or misunderstood R v Gould

Answer 20

When you change your decision of A lower court in a current case Gillick v wite beck health

Answer 21

when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action

Answer 22

Rylands v Fletcher

Answer 23

Occupiers’ liability act of 1957 and 1984

Answer 24

Judge will decide a case based on what is best for the whole society - linked to floodgate argument - Cole v Davies Gilbert and others 2007

Answer 25

Laws tries to create fairness and can be used to elevate the legal rules and theory

Answer 26

Important at when the defendant owned the claimant a duty of care

Answer 27

Set out fundamental rights and freedom TAHT everyone in the uk is entitled to

Answer 28

The body of law - based on court decisions rather that codes or statutes

Answer 29

A type of liability predicted on some sort of wrong doing

Answer 30

The European commission Council of EU European Parliament European Court of Justice

Answer 31

27 commissioners represent each country - specific departments Create policy that can be voted on in council - draft all law can bring cases against any state that fails follow or implement EU law - Guardian role Have control over your budget to not elected may be a issue as payment e.g. Roads in Greece

Answer 32

When the European commission can bring any case against any state follow or implement EU law

Answer 33

When each country in the EU has a person from each state and any amendments to the law through co-decision- work with European Parliament can only pass law if achieve double of majority rule - 55% of members of the council must agree with law percent of the population protecting the country’s interest

Answer 34

When people are democratically elected votes for MEP happens every five years to get accepted or rejected any country That wishes you join Can co-decide on laws views and not binding

Answer 35

But that will apply all EU law oppose sanctions on countries and individuals who breech EU law 27 judges for each country who is based in Luxembourg Shown in Tara-graphs v UK UK didn’t want to fit them in lorries so they were gonna implement it so they were fined Article 267 treaty on functioning of the EU allows a domestic court to raise primarily rulings case -advice on law

Answer 36

The treaties regulations directives decision

Answer 37

The treaties on European Union - Article 50 + rights and functioning Countries decided to agree on free movement to leave the EU cover main rules and regulations of EU Both have the direct effect(country have to follow law)

Answer 38

Horizontal- an individual can sue another individual Vertical - individual can sue the state

Answer 39

Both vertical and horizontal

Answer 40

Proposed by commission brought into law by council set specific policy for all countries Enforceable in all countries as soon as made Flight delays compensation regulation eight hours £450 - Re Taragraphs v UK Horizontal and vertical

Answer 41

Set general policy by lead to the member states to implement in a way that is consistent with their country - orders in Council Working time directive knows how many hours you work e-commerce directive minimum expectations present order summary Vertical Only

Answer 42

Vertical direct effect

Answer 43

francovich V Italy Directives impose individual rights rights are clear harm suffered is due failure

Answer 44

Need a policy for a set country or group (business) and your facts are selective few. Karen Murphy V sky 🌌 Pub landlady show sky sport got license from Greek to be cheaper for movement of services only allowed games no commentary part of private business cannot do it now not In EU

Answer 45

UK entered EU in 1972 became binding in 1973 created European committee act given effective of EU law section 2 and section 4 -EU law must be read and given effect in a way that is consistent with domestic law

Answer 46

What happens when the EU and UK will conflict Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament was so lawmakers

Answer 47

Van Gend en Loos v Netherlands countries have limited their Sovereign rights due to treaties imposing obligations right on states and individuals Costa V ENEL - Are you law cannot be over ridden due to its special nature Macarthy’s V smith - Lord Dennings - If the time should come where our parliament doesn’t cut deliberately repudiating the treaties it is my job to follow Parliament Back to tame EU Spanish fishermen catch not free movement agreed to have freedom you agreed judgement of Lord bridge - over rode lord denning - common law (EU) must take priority HS2 🚅 action alliance transport v SS for transport - just had to leave but still a member of the UK in the same weight as yhe constitution reform at the Magna Carta and parliamentary lawmaking About balance exercise

Answer 48

Left the EU yet has the repeal act (bill) that adopted EU law

Answer 49

Negligence Occupiers’ liability Vicarious liability Nuisance Rylands v Fletcher Defence Remedies

Answer 50

An act that neglects the safety of others

Answer 51

Owners are responsible of the well beings for the people on their land

Answer 52

When an employer is responsible for other employees well-being

Answer 53

An act that leads to negligence

Answer 54

Tank uses water escapes and floods the house closer to the farm

Answer 55

1. If person you are prosecuting is in a Duty of care 2. Was the duty breached - falls below standard of reasonable person 3. Must be resulting damage

Answer 56

must be an employee Salmond criteria 1) Are they an employee ?- do they have an contact 2) Control test - does employers have control the relationship? Yewen v Noates- if there is a clear master and servant dynamic 3) Integration test - is the employee integrated into the business - Time role Stevenson V Mcdonold - more than an accessory 4) Economic reality test - have to provide contact - shows you are an employee Ready mixed concrete case NI deductions , uniform, ownership, contract, payment method 4) fair just and reasonable test- E v English providence - nun and priest sexually assault child in childrens home If these do not apply we see if they are Closely connected - VC v Morrisons MXX v Secondary school 🏫 - focus on acts similar to responsibility of employment - and fairness of it Jehovah’s Witness V BXB Must have relationship with a kin of employee Is there a connection to the perpetrator Is it fair to impose liability 5) a kin to employment - claimant v Barclays- doctor-Independent contract so no liability

Answer 57

Close connection test- sufficiently connected to employment VC v Morrison’s-Data protection breach MXX v A Secondary school 🏫 - focus on acts similar to responsibility of employment - and fairness of it The claim was that there was a breach and misuse of statutory duty Motive of tortfeasor -An employer is not liable for any deliberate actions with the aim of bringing harm to the company 2.Tort must be committed negligence case trespass to the person exceed consensual contact 3. Committed in course of employment

Answer 58

1. Limpus V London- Bus racing it’s an injured claimant employee acts against Orders 2. Rose V Plenty - Child helper , milkman , injured 3. Does action in careless manner acts against orders Century insurance V Northern Ireland Truck driver cigarettes petrol station Was in was around equipment and wearing uniform break within the job 4. Paid travel time Smith V stages deliveryman negligence crash 5. If the duty of care and Tort is closely connected Caretaker SA kids- Lister V Heley Hall connected has to take care of children get abused them historic case not connected to taking care of the school connected to health and safety of children breaching duty of care Mohamed V Morrisons - CLOSE CONNECTION Punch customer goes against consensual contact because customer had not consented to be punched in the face consented to have money exchanged for product

Answer 59

1. Frolic of his own Tort feasor has chosen to do it removed from employment Hilton V Burton Car accident break café 2. Twine V beans unauthorised lift no benefit that does not benefit the employer look how much helping the employer would work however Twains V beans was not beneficial links to Rose V plenty 3. Acting in a way I’m connected to employment Beard V london Bus conductor no contract broken laws to get there 4. Serious criminal offences policy decisions - unforseeable V V Merseyside police - rape Police officer drunken lady had equipment

Answer 60

You must take reasonable care to avoids acts of omission which could foreseeable injure your neighbour

Answer 61

Caparo V Dickman - incremental (three stage test ) Proximity Foreseeable Fair just and reasonable New - Robinson - can move away from test if pre-existing duty exists or it’s obvious and can be established by analogy

Answer 62

Caparo v Dickman - 3 stages (incremental ) Proximity , foreseeable , just fair and reasonable Robinson- can move away from 3 stage rule if there is a pre-existing duty exists or by an that is establish analogy

Answer 63

1) a reasonable man Blyth V Birmingham waterWorks Baron Alderson -Negligence is the omission of a the reasonable man

Answer 64

1) professionals - defendant has skill to show what’s typical Bolam v Barnet health management Montgomery V Lanarkshire health board - duty to disclose risks to patients No guilty - acted in appropriate DOCTOR RISK PATIENT 2) learners - Nettleship V Weston - learner driver judged as an experience driver LERNER JUDGED EXPERIENCED 2) children and young - reasonable person of defendants age Mullin V Richards 15 year old school girl

Answer 65

Risk factors

Answer 66

If the claimant has anything that needs to be considered standard is changed like disability Reasonable man performing tasks in circumstances

Answer 67

Special characteristics of claimant- and if the claimant requires more care it’s meant to be given and the requirement is raised Paris V Stepney -I’m not supplying goggles on the one eyed welder The greater risk to the claimant meant that the Greater precautions are normal should be taken the size of risk - The bigger the risk the more precautions that might be taken Haley V London electricity board - Blind came and tripped over Hammer - warning was not adequate for blind people costs and practicality - If it was cheaper and easier more likely you should’ve stopped it from happening Latimer V AEC - Factory owner had to close factory to avoid risk, disproportionate to risk involved What are the risks known at the time - if not known no breach Roe v Minister of health - Invisible cracks leak with cleaning products - no knowledge- no breach The potential benefits of the risk -Court must weigh up if some risks are a benefit to society Daborn V Bath Tramways - Not appropriate to reduce train journey times to 5 mph to minimise their accident

Answer 68

To help protect and innocent claimant allowing them on effective remedy Employer arguable is in charge - control test - shown they have control (yewen v noakes) Responsible for training - avoiding negligence act careless act - century insurance V NI transport Only imposed liability if fair just or reasonable to do so E v English providence To improve standards of care and safety New rules - independent contractor is not an employee VC V Barclays - lack any any form of control

Answer 69

1) Goes against fault principle , solely on ground that they have more money 2) If you have specifically restricted the activity and and the employee fails to listen to you - Limpus V London Rose V plenty 3) unfair how can you control the careless acts of an employee CI V NI 4) close connections (VC V Morrisons ) rules in E V English Providence Rules are ambiguous- not clearly explained and applied differently on case by case basis Employer does not know where they stand - unfair 5) confused + issues with case with contradicting with each other Lister V Hersey Hall contradicted by N V Mercysidr police Rose V plenty contradicts with Twain’s V beans - no benefit to employer Rules created is fair if employer benefits when they should pay

Answer 70

1. A) Causation in fact - but for test- if we remove def and injury still happened it’s not their fault Barnet V Chelsea Kingsignton Vomited drunk arsenic B) Multiple causes - more than one cause by suffering a loss Fair child V Glenhaven Funeral service- % of compensation unfair to impose all duty on one company C. Intervening acts - Novus Actus Intervienus Break chain of causation - prevent defendant to be liable Reeves V commissioner of police of metropolis e - suicide underduty Unforeseeable did not break chain of causation - 2.a) causation in law - remoteness of damage - the wagon mound - law draws line w damage that can be compressed or not Hughes V Lord advocate WAGON MOUND - DISCHARGE FUEL FIRE DAMAGE SHIP- TOO REMOTE NOT LIABLE B) type of injury to be foreseeable Damage must be reasonable and foreseeable no matter how a far it takes or unusual it is Bradford V Robinsion Rentals - frostbite- foreseeable but to weather - unusual situation C) Thin skull rule - take victim as you find them Liable even if reason is more narrow sue to weakness of claimant Smith V leech brain - precancerous condition Liable for result of negligence

Answer 71

1957- Occupies liability act - visitors 1984- trespasses

Answer 72

1. Who is the visitor- section 2 of the 1957 act Duty of care with any licensee a person with consent to legal rights and concentual right If a trespasser you exceed your permission 2. Who is an occupier for both 1957 and in 1984 look if you have- ownership for control Ownership - Wheat V Lacon- Can be more than one occupier - pub room stair dead Control - Bailey V Armes -Parents that child on the roof of supermarket owners were unsure fell Had no control who’s on the roof and did not know 3. What is the premises? - 1957 + 1984 Sect 1 (3) Fixed or movable structure including a vessel vehicle and other structures

Answer 73

1. Visitors are owned a duty of care occupies have a duty of care to keep visitors reasonably safe we don’t have to keep you completely safe Laventon V kiapasha- slipped but not liable - kept you reasonable safe 2. Duty of care can vary depending on type of visitor Lower has a different level of protection children have higher standard of care- Cooke V Midland Railway 🚃 S.2(3) - children are alluded to danger no liability of parents support the activity thinks it’s safe Simkiss V Rhonda 3. Professional visitor - lower standard of care when harm carries from something connected to the field of work Roles V Nathan - Knew risks of Carbon monoxide

Answer 74

Responsible to give work to contractor Haseldine V Daw - lift pludge not liable Contractor must be competent - Bottomly V todmorton Occupier must check the work - woodworth V mayor of Hastings

Answer 75

1. Must check if harm is suffers in the state of the land Davis V cole- Duty not stand the test of time - cannot sue council (hole made by accident ) 2. Harm is suffered must be foreseeable - Jolley V Sutton - argued not foreseeable to rebuild but was if child was near - crushed Was on Council Land - occupies the boat - allowing the boat to stay there - allured children to it (danger )

Answer 76

1. Sc 2 (4) If compete defence was enough to keep you reasonably safe Rae V marrs- spoken or writing 2. Exclusion clause - person limited their responsibility- cannot exclude liability for personal excluded liable - car park 3. Contributory negligence - contribute to your own negligence - limited compensation Volenti non fit injuria - (Titchna V British rail 🚃) consent to negligence- deduct 100% of compensation

Answer 77

The contributory negligence act 1945

Answer 78

1. Claimant must fail to take resonable care over safety Sayors V Harlow - fell broke ankle Swons V Davies - out of position 2. This failure must contribute to the harm - Froom v Butcher- seatbelt Capps V Miller - focus on head injury - helmet 100% - Jayes V IMI knew machine was faulty but wanted job done

Answer 79

1. Knowledge of precise risk - wood ridge V sumner Clear knowledge of risks of harm from closely supervising horse show 2. Exercise of free choice - claimant must show they accept the risk Smith V Baker - did not know was going to be transported under head - no imply no hard hat 3. Voluntary Acceptant of risk - Ogwo V Taylor - accepted it through going into upstairs hatch

Answer 80

Trespasser exceeds permission - premises 1. Occupier must be aware that danger exists- is it obvious ? Do not have to protect obvious risks Ratcliff V Mcconol- occupier has to be aware - needs protection Rhinds V Astbury - unaware of fibreglass container at bottom of pool 2. Have to know or ought a trespasser in the vicinity - Higgs V Forster - police officer not liable as trespasser was not known 3.Risk where some protection must be offered - but not for obvious risks Time of day or year - Donoghue V Folkstone - jumped in pool in winter and midnight - not obvious was going to happen 4. Duty of care- children are owned same standard of care as adults as trespassers (1984) Baldacchino V West Wiltering - no duty as it was not due to premise Do not need to spend lots of money on protection - Tomlinson V Longleton danger caused by diving not council 4. Not state of land - keown V Convery - jumped themselves 5. Harm is caused by state of the land - keown V convery 6 Harm is foreseeable Jolley v Sutton 7 Defences - con neg Volenti - (Titchna V british railway 🚃 ) Exclusion clause WARING sc 2 (4) enough to keep reasonable safe - Westwood V post office

Answer 81

Made due to environmental damages caused by escape on individuals land Person with own purpose brings anything likely to cause mischief onto land - if it escapes it’s answerable all damages are the concequece for the escape

Answer 82

1. Have something that has been brought into land - ( does not belong) - (Giles v Walker - weeds spread x ) Miles v Forrest Granite ( explosives - rocks caused damage ) 2. Have something that causes mischief If it escapes - could cause harm or damage if escapes - Hales V Jennings - causes - damage Shiffman case - flagpole loss Transco v Stockport 3. Escapes and causes damages - leaves Ds land - amotion occurs on persons land - causes damage weller V Footmouth More than financial loss Damage -cannot be foreseeable Cambridge water V eastern counties leather Read V Lyon X (Stanard v Gore) 4. Result on un-natural use of land -not what you expect on domestic land - Mason V Levy - unusual sue to large quantity of tires

Answer 83

1. Act of God - freak weather events - outside of control - Nichol V Marsland 2. Act of a stranger - unidentified person causing the escape - Perry V Kendrick Transport 3. Act of third party - unauthorised act- unidentifiable person - LMS v Styrene 4. Statutory Authority- act of Parliament allow escape - happened in careful way Smeaton V Ilford 5. Consent - claimant has received permission of thing accumulating in land - Peter V Price of Wales Theater

Answer 84

Unlawful indirect interference with another persons use or enjoyment of land in which they have interest in

Answer 85

A balancing act - competing claims with neighbours todo was the wish on their land

Answer 86

Creators of nuisance (tetley v Chitty ) Landlords independent contractors Occupies ( Leakey V National trust )

Answer 87

Hunter V Canary Wharf owners or proprietary of if your a tenant or legal owner Claiming who had interest with the land effected

Answer 88

There has been an unreasonable use of land

Answer 89

Locality- where are you live had a bearing on the situation Laws V Florinplace Duration - the longer the nuisance goes for the more likely it is to be seen as unreasonable Crown cruise V Kimbolton Malice- if nuisance occurs under bad motive, the more likely reasonable acts will be seen as unreasonable in the eye of the law - Hollywood silver fox V Emmet Sensitivity - only allow foreseeable damage ( Network rail Vmorris) Social benefit- Nuisance provide some wider social benefit may be found that nuisance is reasonable (Miller V Jackson )

Answer 90

Is the nuisance leading to indirect interference with the enjoyment of land? Hunter V Canary Wharf Smoke vibrations noises effluvia fires

Answer 91

This has caused damage to claimant - discomfort Cambridge water Co v Eastern counties leather Swab V Costalki

Answer 92

Area of law research by legal experts its nonpolitical the law commission consults before finalising proposals the whole area of law can be considered not just small issues And modernise law

Answer 93

Failure of Parliament to implement reforms government is too slow to enact forms Major area in law which needs to be reformed is then non fatal offences against the Person Governments makes a proposal in principle but not follow them

Answer 94

Advantages- the Royal commission can take evidence from appropriate experts they concentrate on one area -thorough understanding disadvantages - the royal commission can only make recommendations and not put in affect pearson commission- personal injury cases no change in law in the 21st-century royal commissions has affectively been abandoned

Answer 95

Advantages - judges have experience of working in law business people have expertise likely to take a different approach in law SYSTEM disadvantages - to take judges away from everyday role courts are very busy to reduce a number of judges does not improve efficiency business may not have the understanding of current law system May not fully appreciate what will work in the legal system

Answer 96

Magistrates

Answer 97

Prescription- the defendant has of the right to carry on is it because activity has been going on for 20 years or more Claimant knew nothing activity must also have been a nuisance for the same length of time Sturges V Bridgman - I’ve new implemented Coventry v Lawrence 2. Moving to the nuisance ⚠️🚨NOT A DEFENCE🚨 ⚠️- defendant may argue that claimant is only suffering the nuisance if they have moved closer to the problem Sturges v bridgeman Or area (Miller v Jackson) 2. statutory Authority- It is possible that statute has authorise something to be done which means the thing is not a nuisance Allen V gulf oil refining 1981 Marcic V Thames Walter Plc 2003 Water industry act 1991 already provided with with remedy so no nuisance Or local planning permission - Watson V Croft Can only be a defence if it changes the character of the land

Answer 98

Into - what negligence is Where the law originated from How we establish if there is an existed duty - Robinson v chief constable 👮‍♀️ Stages - duty of care , was it breeches and if there was damage sustained 2) breech of duty Reasonable man - blyth V bath waterworks alderson - negligence is the ommisson of the reasonable man Variations of reasonable man - learners Professional Young people and childern 3) risk factors 4) damages 5) remedies

Answer 99

Intro- definition of occupies liability years say stages Go through process Warnings Balance out and give outcome injunction or compensation

Answer 100

1. Are they an employee- 6 stages 2. Tort committed - close connection test and negligence 3. Acting in and out of course of employment

Answer 101

It justifies the rule it respects the sovereignty of Parliament and preventsUnelected judges from making law People know where they stand with the literal because - wording will not change therefore encourages certainly less litigation Lead to quicker decisions- dictionary

Answer 102

Can lead to unfair or I’m just decisions in London and North Eastern railway Co. V Berriman Words have different meaning -difficult to reply Not always possible to have a word to cover an act in every situation

Answer 103

1. CourtsWording makes sense of prevent an absurd repugnant wording - Resigworth 2. Respects authority of parliament - all other circumstance to be used

Answer 104

1. Only allows judges to change law if only repugnant or absurd outcome - limited circumstances 2. Unsafe safety valve - no guidelines when to use golden rule is used 3. Drifts powers from parliamentary to judicial discretion

Answer 105

1. Gives to affect to true intention of parliament - judges to look beyond a little meaning concerns to remedy 2. Allows judges to fill gaps 3. Allows judges to interpret statutes in light of changing social circumstances are (RCN v DHSS) 4. A more satisfactory approach than other two stated in the law commission

Answer 106

Finding intention of parliament not easy Language to confusion as judges may not know the meaning of words Judges too much power through filling in words

Answer 107

gives True intention of Parliament Allows judges to fill gaps - (Mayors and St Melons V Newports ) Use of common sense Allows judges to interpret law in the light of changing social economical and technological circumstances ( R(Q) V Home of SS ) Allows the use of Hansard - (Pepper V Hart)

Answer 108

Use of Hansard it’s not easy due to it being limited under circumstances Can lead to confusion- inconsistent judgement make by judges Judges can overstep their role Too much power given to judges- Goes against Parliamentary sovereignty

Answer 109

Punctuation helps guide judges with meanings Definition sections help guide the judges toward what words actually mean- the theft act s4 . Defines property Schedules are good because it allows us to get a more detailed scope of the act- Hunting act 2004 Long title ✅ mischief approach

Answer 110

Long and short titles have limited years Judges do not find meanings within the act itself

Answer 111

Dictionaries- useful for the literal interpretation of words Interpretations sections acts ✅ with common words and phrases Previous acts ✅ - mischief rule preventing Law commission ✅ - tells us what was wrong with law previously (R v Shripuri )

Answer 112

Dictionaries are not good for literal definitions when there’s more than one meaning Interpretation acts are limited- more if technical Hansard - waste of time - establish what Parliament was trying to say

Answer 113

Compensation and injunction

Answer 114

Special damages general damages

Answer 115

After the trial - Maybe ongoing

Answer 116

Up to date of the trial Tort happening until court date

Answer 117

Pecuniary loss - Easy to calculate non-pecuniary loss -hard to financially value

Answer 118

loss of earnings after trial -P - max 25 years Pain and suffering - N future expenses - P-reasonable - (Cunningham V Harrison) loss of amenity - Enjoyment of life hobbies activities - N

Answer 119

Mitigate their losses

Answer 120

Lump sum periodical payment - Or structural settlement

Answer 121

Mandatory - Defendant has to do a positive act prohibitory- Defendant had to stop doing an unlawful act

Answer 122

Discretion -Those that come to equity must do you say with clean hands 🙌(maxim)

Answer 123

Coventry V Lawrence- Whether the injunction can be realistically kept to Financial implication of any sanction A void overcompensation

Answer 124

Loss of earnings of the trial date Loss of Property medical expenses up to Trial

Answer 125

For - Prevented floodgates argument -Stopped overwhelming increase of litigation - (Cole v David Gilbert ) prevents compensation culture - we are in - Litigious society you have someone to blame you have a case (Harris V Perry) laissez-faire policy-negligence originates from minimal state intervention It’s a form of deterrence - dangerous acts can be prevented Accountability - hold people accountable - Good for society Against - Exceptions unfair - hard to identify the fault fault or no fault - cannot be proven - Bolton V Stone Public policy- party may be at fault but may be overlooked due to public policy reasons - no remedy or justice for claimant Should compensate not punish - court of tort has a role to bring justice and morality

Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Section B: The Law Of Tort 😈 Flashcards

Brainscape's Knowledge Genome^TM