Reflective Evaluation

For Far too often, I have usually been caught in the illusion that I can succeed by relying on my supposed natural ability without putting in the hard work and failing pay attention to detail. Hard work in any endeavour goes a long way in guaranteeing success; it is no different for a law student like me, whose sole aim is to join the bar. By this, I mean reading my recommended textbooks and jotting down the salient points during lectures and seminar.

The intrinsic skills I feel are paramount to my successful completion of the LLB and beyond are linguistic and analytical skills. Since my ephemeral time on the course, I have been inundated with cases after cases all requiring a rudimentary analytical skill to ascertain the facts of cases and to gain a greater understanding of the applicable law pertaining to that subject. A useful approach I have adopted to help me study is the SQ3R technique, which is to survey, question, read, recall or recite and review.

The technique helps me to grasp factual contents by recalling previously skimmed cases by a way of embedding in my mind what I have previously read. This then gives me an initial overview of the case. I sometimes play what I have read in my mind every now then, it helps me to recall cases, rules, regulations et al during brainstorming among my colleagues and during seminars as well. I need to improve my communication and delivery skills, because I believe they are and will be essential in my chosen career. I have decided to join the mooting club, which I believe will help shape my debating skills and overall communication skills.

hardcopy research

1, I visited the library and I used the current law – case citator 1989-1995 on page number 170 to find the case of foster v British gas plc. The full citation for the case is foster v British gas [1991] 2 A C 306.

2, I visited the library and I used the current law case citator 2008 to find the case of froom v butcher. The full name of the case is froom v butcher [1976] Q B 286, on page 114 and it gave me a reference no 02/3258. I used the “current law year book 2002″ and found out that it has been applied in J (A child) v Wilkins [2001] R.T.R 19 on page1169.

3, I visited the library and I used the current law legislator in a hierarchical order from 2009 to the 1972 to 1988 legislation citatory and found on page 145 that the act has been repealed in 1981, c.69, sch.17. I found out in chapter 69 of the 1981 legislation citatory that the wildlife and countryside act 1981 has taken over the protection of bird’s act 1954 on page 541.

4, I visited the library and used the case citator in a hierarchical order from the recent to 2005. I found it in the current law case citator 2005 on page 204. The full title and citation is (fam div: gender recognition act 2004: procedure) [2005] 2 F.L.R. 122, fam div.

5, I visited the library and used the halsbury’s laws of England (2009) and looked up copyrights in the index. I found it on page 672, which detailed copyright, design right and related rights, is contained in vol 9(2) (4th), para 1 et sq. I perused the fourth edition of the halbury’s laws of England (4) and on page 9 I found the copyright, design, and patent act 1988 as the governing law for copyrights.

6. I visited the library and used the library catalogue to search for books on constitutional reforms. I got a number of results and chose constitutional reform in the UK by dawn Oliver, which I found on shelf no 342. The Harvard reference for the book is, Oliver, D. (2003) ‘Constitutional reform in the UK, Oxford: Oxford University Press,

online research

1, I used the case search “box” in the Lexis library and searched for West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty. I found the full citation as West Bromwich Albion Football Club Ltd v El-Safty [2005] EWHC 2866 (QB).

2, I used the legislation “box” in the lexis library and searched for Family Law Reform Act 1987. I found the act and the subsequent part that referred to the act as Part IV of the Administration of Estates Act 1925.

3, I used the legislation “box” in the lexis library and searched for Civil Evidence Act 1968. I found the act and the section (18) which reads as, an individual has the right to refuse and give evidence in legal proceedings if it can or will incriminate their spouse or partner but it does not absolve them from giving evidence or answering questions in criminal proceedings.

4, I used the case search “box” in the Westlaw library and searched for Wandsworth LBC v A, I got 135 hits and chose result no 71. The full case citation is Wandsworth LBC v A [2000] 1 W.L.R. 1246.

This case involves a parent who seeks to overturn an injunction imposed on her by the headmaster of the school her child attends. She was banned from the premises for abusing the school’s staff, having ignored the school’s warning not to step a foot on the premises. The school applied for an injunction to restrain her from entering the premises. The case was held that, the school did not have unlimited powers to terminate a parents right to enter the school and that the manner in which the school sought the injunction was wrong because the parent was not given an opportunity to bring in representation.

5, I visited the ministry of justice website at www.justice.gov.uk. Under procedural rules, I clicked the criminal procedural rules. On the bottom left-pane of the page I searched for “victim personal statement”, I got five results and I selected the first one (Part III: Further Practice Directions Applying in The Crown Court and Magistrates’ Courts), I found the victim personal statement under (III.28VICTIM PERSONAL STATEMENTS), the scheme started on the 1 October 2001.

6, I used the journal search “box” and searched for res ipsa loquitor. I found Medical misdiagnosis: a shifting of the burden of proof by David Harris. The full citation of the article is, Harris, D. (2008). Medico-Legal Journal of Ireland. Medical misdiagnosis: a shifting of the burden of proof. 14 (1), p8-13.

7, I used the Westlaw case search “box” and I typed in (defamation AND privy council as a command in the free text box). I got 290 hits. I chose number 12 of the result which is Seaga v Harper [2010] 1 W.L.R. 312.

8, I used the Westlaw case search “box”, and I typed in ([1932] 2 K.B. 431) in the citation box. I got Chapman v Ellsmere; I clicked on key case citing. I found Russell v Duke of Norfolk

[1949] 1 All E.R. 109; 65 T.L.R. 225; (1949) 93 S.J. 132 followed Chapman v Ellsmere.

9, I used the lexis-nexis library and searched for defamation act 1996 in the legislation search box. I typed in the date and got 8 hits. I chose the defamation act 1996 (1996 c31). I clicked on Section 16 of the act and clicked on “find relating commentary” I then chose (Defamation Act 1952.) section 16 of the act repeals a number of sections of the defamation act 1952 namely: section 4, 7, 8, 9, 16.

10, I used the lexis-nexis library and searched for Compensation Act 2006 in the legislation search “box”. I ticked the SI check box before searching for the act. I got 9 results and I chose the first result. The full citation for the instrument is SI 2006/3259 and the name of the instrument is Compensation Act 2006 (Contribution for Mesothelioma Claims) Regulations 2006.

11, I used the Westlaw EU search “box”, I clicked on the advanced tab and I ticked EU cases, under free text I typed in contract and consumer as the subject in the subject box. I typed in 2010 under publication reference. I got 11 results and chose the first result. The case is EU: Case C-484/08 Caja de Ahorros y Monte de Piedad de Madrid v Asociación de Usuarios de Servicios Bancarios (Ausbanc) [2010] ECR 00.

12. I used the Westlaw EU search “Advance search box”, and typed in directive in the title and equal treatment in the free text box. I got 53 results and I chose the second result. the directive is: Directive 2010/41/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 July 2010 on the application of the principle of equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity in a self-employed capacity and repealing Council Directive 86/613/EECCitation: OJ 2010 L180/1

PROBLEM QUESTION

My plan is to first identify the subject area of the problem question

Familiarise myself with the laws, rules, regulations applicable to the subject area.

An introduction to the problem

A body, which shall contain the base and analysis of the problem question i.e. (acts, cases, and academic references).

A summary of the problem question.

This is a tort question involving Karis and Ajay. Karis feels the local council’s negligence in repairing and maintaining the high street pavement led to her accident and wants to sue, Ajay wants to sue as well having crashed into another vehicle as result of him being distracted by Karis’s accident. The issues in this case per karis’s claim is whether the local council is responsible for her tripping and if so can they be held liable for dereliction of duty? Did Karis contribute to her accident? In Ajay’s case, he can sue both Karis and the local council for his accident, Karis for distracting him by virtue of her tripping and the local council for their failure to repair the pavement that caused Karis to trip.

The main theme of this problem question is negligence, there are three elements needed to prove negligence in the English courts they are Duty of care, Breach of Duty (standard of care), causation (remoteness and damages).

Under section 41 of the highway Act 1980, the local council is responsible for the maintenance of roads. The corollary then is that they are in breach of their statutory duty if they fail to maintain and repair loose stones on the pavement. In Mills v Barnsley Metropolitan Council [1992], Griffith’s v Liverpool Corporation, Idowu v Enfield LBC, it was established that, “In order for a plaintiff to succeed against a highway authority in a claim for personal injury for failure to maintain or repair the highway, the plaintiff must prove that:

(a) The highway was in such a condition that it was dangerous to traffic or pedestrians in the sense that, in the ordinary course of human affairs, the public may reasonably have anticipated danger from its continued use;

(b) The dangerous condition was created by the failure to maintain or repair the highway; and

(c) The injury or damage resulted from such a failure. Only if the plaintiff proves these facta probanda does it become necessary to turn to the highway authority’s reliance on the special defence under section 58(1) of the 1980 Act, namely, that the authority had taken such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required to secure that the particular part of the highway was not dangerous to traffic. On this aspect, the burden rests on the highway authority.”

Sometimes, disputes can come up about the one responsible for the ownership of the area where the plaintiff tripped as in the case of “Gulliksen Pembrokeshire County Council [2002]”. Under s 36(1) of the 1980 Act all highways which had been maintainable at public expense under the Highways Act 1959 continued to be so maintainable; that s 36(2) was an explicitly residual set of categories since it excluded highways which fell within s 36(1); that the footpath on which the claimant tripped was, prior to the coming into force of s 36(1),

A highway maintainable at public expense by virtue of s 38(2), (c) of the 1959 Act as a highway constructed by the council under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 and, therefore, it continued to be so maintainable following the coming into force of the 1980 Act; and that, accordingly, there was a statutory duty on the council to maintain the footpath”.

The third element to prove negligence is causation. In Dymond v Pearce and others [1972] 1 All ER 1142, it was held that “The parking of a large vehicle for many hours on the highway constituted an obstruction which resulted in a nuisance being created, for part of the highway was thereby removed from public use. The owner and driver of the lorry were not however liable for the plaintiff’s injuries because, the sole cause of the accident being the motor cyclist’s negligence. It followed that the nuisance created by the defendants was not a cause of the accident; the nuisance did not present a danger to those using the highway in the manner in which they could have been expected to use it”.

From the above cases and upon initial observation, we can reasonably infer that the local council owes Karis a duty of care and that the council is in breach of their statutory duty to maintain and repair the roads. Per Ajay’s it will be difficult to sue because it will be problematic to prove that a loose pavement posed a risk to highway (Drivers) users and that the continued use of the pavement poses a danger to highway users. The local council do contest this cases citing contributory negligence i.e.( not being careful, overbalance, et al ) as in the case of froom v butcher, Stanton v Collinson, Smith v Finch.