Tomlinson V Conglele Council

A controversial aspect of the criminal justice system is the Crown’s use of discretion when it decides to make charge negotiations. This means that the crown offers the accused a lesser charge should they plead guilty to it. In doing so, the crown benefits from the assured conviction (maintaining peace and security by an efficient means) and the accused benefits from a lesser sentence. However by employing powers of discretion in this case and making a deal with offenders, is seems to be at the expense of victims as there if insufficient retribution. The case of Nannette May (2009) epitomises the concern of victims, as May was not given a chance to give evidence against her attacker due to his acceptance of a

This essay will briefly explain negligence and its elements and will further critically analyse the UK compensation culture and discuss whether it exist, or whether it is a perception created by the media. This essay will further discuss whether the UK laws encourage people to blame and claim and what the UK law has done to prevent an increase in the compensation culture.

The purpose of tort law is to provide compensation to victims when they have experienced harm or loss. Making the person “whole” and

As a starting note, any mention of concurrent liability should be assumed to mean concurrently liability in tort and contract. Traditionally the distinction between contract and tort was that contract concerns the improvement of the claimant 's position, whereas tort is concerned with dealing with their position worsening. There has been dispute around concurrent liability and its ambiguity has led to varying decision in cases and statute making as Taylor puts it “the basis of concurrent liability uncertain”. This essay will argue Tort has and is extending itself beyond its traditional role due to judges presumption of morality leading to the unclear concurrent liability we see today. Whilst this concurrent liability shows some

However, not all cases receive the luxury we call justice. Many cases have been turned over and neglected, leaving individuals who patiently await their trial date deprived of justice. Injustice in the judicial system has been an apparent problem for decades. Every case has to be viewed in an unbiased perspective with a sufficient amount of evidence. If these conditions are not met, the possibility for injustice increases drastically.

A great number of legitimate frameworks depend on the preface that litigants are dealt with as honest until demonstrated liable and that choices will be fair and exclusively in light of the realities of the case. The legitimacy of this

This essay will argue that the decision reached in Cattanach v Melchior [2003] was the correct one. Supporting this argument is the courts departure from the principles established in McFarlane v Tayside Health Board [1999].Additionally, Cattanach extends itself by attempting to address and give legal clarity to the idea of compensable harm in relation to negligence of medical practitioners. This has ultimately led to Cattanach establishing a positive framework, previously not recognised by the courts, to award damages for the torts of wrongful birth and wrongful life. Finally, the reaction to Cattanach on the judicial and executive branches of government have had significant impact on shaping public policy in relation to these complex issues.

Tort law is a considerably old branch of English law, covering a wide range of areas within such as defamation, nuisance, trespass and, most importantly, negligence. The latter set out the modern concept of negligence by means of Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562. Furthermore, in twentieth century a number of fundamental elements were established in negligence, elevating its significance above all other areas of tort law. Most problematic and difficult subgroup of negligence is clinical negligence, where doctor are held to another standards. Nonetheless, the old foundations were disturbed by the enforcement of the Human Rights Act 1998, which was a successful attempt to incorporate the European Convention of Human Rights into English domestic law. It is applied directly or indirectly into many areas of law, clinical negligence in torts in particular, adding multiple complications as it has to comply with the new Act. The influence of the HRA is yet to be fully researched professionally and amended. In attempt to explore the impact of the HRA 1998 on clinical negligence this essay examines the reasons for integration of the HRA and issues it came with and compares various types of negligence, liability of public authorities and remedies before and after the HRA came into force.

Public policy prevents restitution in favor of a person who, whether or not by agreement with or at the request of another, has committed a seriously wrongful act. It is a matter for judicial discretion to determine whether an act is so seriously wrongful as to bar restitution under the particular circumstances. Normally consciously criminal conduct

Following Bridge’s comment that “the juridical basis of the duty to mitigate is obscure”, the first section of the essay will examine whether mitigation is best explained as an aspect of causation. It will be considered if causation explains mitigation, whether causation is the superior explanation, before discussing an alternative approach based on a reformulation of the compensatory principle. The second section of the essay will examine the true basis for the rules of remoteness in contract and tort, and will ask whether the

Clothier D (2008) From England Restorative Justice: Whats that then? Justice Reflection Issue 17 .London.

“The essential purpose and most basic principle of tort law is that the plaintiff must be placed in the position he or she would have been in absent the defendant’s fault or negligence.” It is impossible to fully restore the plaintiff, as he will never be fully restored. However, compensation is the best way to put the plaintiff back into his original position. Even though most resources of the tort system are spent on dealing with claims, it is a very slow process as it is so complex because it involves many parties. It is often time consuming and expensive to file a claim, making it very cost-ineffective. The increased involvement of insurance companies has made it even more time consuming, with the introduction of their own

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom’s decision in Mohamud represents a subtle yet fundamental change to the area of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability derives from a combination of legal principles and judicial discretion. It is not the result of a clearly developed, logical legal principle . The moving landscape of vicarious liability, as evidenced in Mohamud, can be attributed largely to the courts desire to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. This has occurred by liberal application of existing legal principles and expansive use of judicial discretion.

The Master of the Rolls instructed the Lord Justice Jackson to review the rules and principles governing the costs of civil litigation and to make recommendations in order to promote access to justice at proportionate cost. Sir Rupert Jackson made a hundred and nine recommendations. This essay will not delve to analyse each recommendation however its purpose will be to examine to what extent were the objectives set out achievable. It is crucial at this point to mention that since the United Kingdom prescribes to the common law legal system and there has not been any established case law to determine whether the objectives have been achievable or not, my analyse will be supported by articles from notable law scholars such as

Perhaps the greatest insight provided by my colleague's discussion is the deconstruction of the process by which the concept of negligence did ultimately emerge as a new tort standard. Here, the discussion illustrates the challenge before a judicial body when a legal conflict appears to bring about a new and previously unforeseen point of contention. In this case, as my colleague highlights so effectively, the charge of fraud would be the only theretofore existent way of legally addressing liability for a business or organization such as the defendant in this case. The great insight provided by my colleague is in acknowledgement of the exhaustive review of existing legal documents engaged by the ruling parties and arguing parties. This process demonstrates well that even where no precedent existing for what would become the charge of negligence,