tort lawuk british english writing
THE 2000 EXAMINATION PAPER : LAW OF TORTS - REVISION ADVICE 2021 THE 2021 EXAMINATION PAPER Specific Points About the Exam Resulting From the Coronavirus With the ongoing Covid 19 epidemic, the University has instructed us that exams will be conducted online again this year, via Moodle/Turnitin uploads. While you will have access to your notes, you need to be very well prepared and work very quickly as the exam will be time-limited and you will be marked on whatever has been locked into the system at the end of the 3 hours and 15 minutes allocated for this exam (subject to any additional time (probably an hour again) given for uploading work). The examination paper will only be made visible to you within the examination timetabled hours. Obviously, those allocated extra time for writing will be accommodated on the system too. · THREE QUESTIONS must be answered in total. (Remember if you only answer two questions you cut your total possible marks by 33%!) The first 50% of any question’s marks are much easier to get than the last 50%. Make sure you answer three questions in full and in accordance with the rubric. · LENGTH OF EXAM: THREE HOURS 15 MINUTES (including 15 minutes reading time) · 55 minutes – 1 hour for each question · Best to allow reading time at the end of the exam · There are THREE SECTIONS Section A MBA’s Questions Section B CP’s Questions Section C LH’s Questions The paper is structured so that YOU MUST ANSWER ONE QUESTION FROM EACH SECTION and at least ONE PROBLEM and ONE ESSAY. REVISION METHOD · PROBLEM ANSWER/ESSAY PLANS It is crucial that you revise using tutorial questions and past exam papers because: · That way the examination will not be a complete unseen examination. You will already have familiarised yourself with the type of question and the issues the examiners consider to be important at present as well as those they have considered to be important in the past and are likely still to consider important. · It is only through tackling questions that you will discover what you do not understand and where the gaps in your knowledge are. You can then immediately set about remedying the deficiency. · Even though the problem facts will change, the principles of law generally will not (though they may have been updated). Once you have developed a pattern of argument and authorities, you will find the topic easier to remember. · As for essay questions – you can work out your attitude on key issues and check authorities before going into the examination rather than being forced to provide an unprepared response in the examination. · WRITING TO TIME This is particularly important for those who: · Overrun their time and weaken their chances of doing well by having to skimp on the final question. · Spend too long at the beginning on general issues rather than answering the question relevantly at the beginning. · Spend too long planning and so do not have time to write full answers. (As a general rule, most planning should be done during your 15 minute reading time.) · INDIVIDUAL FEEDBACK/ADVICE By email: Ordinarily, we would be booking physical appointments with you to see you in the last two weeks of term but as that is not possible, you should email your work up until the end of term and we will try to look at it and give you feedback. Remember, all three of us will be taking annual leave over the spring break and will not be available to support you throughout that period so make a note of the dates below when we are. Send relevant work as an attachment to
[email protected] or
[email protected] or
[email protected] Feedback Over the Easter Period Chris will try to make some time over the holiday period to mark answers. 14-15 April looks the most obvious time as she has annual leave for much of the holiday period. Monika Will try to look at draft answers between 20-21 April Louise Will hold office hours on 19-20 April for Tort practice questions Email us during these times so that we can organise our feedback and avoid wasting your time with work submitted too late or when we are on leave and cannot give feedback. SELECTING REVISION TOPICS · Ideally, you should have an outline knowledge of the entire syllabus before you begin. · Revise enough topics in detail to feel comfortable and confident that you will have three good answers in the examination. · BE CAREFUL NOT TO REVISE HALF A TOPIC AREA. (Refer to the guidelines below for suitable topic areas.) REVISION TOPIC GROUPINGS SECTION A GROUP ONE: Intentional Torts and Defences (Problem) As intentional torts is the area of law used to introduce you to problem-solving in Torts, recognition of the issues and demonstration of application of authority to the scenario is more important than detailed in-depth analysis of key judgments. The problem solution will require a good knowledge of the legal principles and cases relating to proof of the elements of each of the individual trespass to the person torts – Assault, Battery and False Imprisonment – as well as the defences, statutory or at common law, which may make the intentional act lawful. We studied in depth Collins v Wilcock [1984] 3 All ER 374 which provided definitions for all three Torts and Stephens v Myers [1830], Tuberville v Savage [1669], Lane v Holloway [1968]. Don’t forget to include in your revision General Defences and Remedies. Key authorities: Collins v Wilcock Darwish v Egyptair Stephen v Myers Tuberville v Savage Thomas v National Union of Miners [1986] Iqbal v Prison Officers Association Austin v Chief Constable of the Metropolis Davidson v Chief Constable of North Wales R v Ireland [1998] HL The tort in Wilkinson and Downton Protection from Harassment Act 1997 Prison Act 1952 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) GROUP TWO: General Principles of Negligence and Defences (Essay) When revising for an essay on negligence you will need to examine the key authorities closely to consider your arguments relating to current key issues in negligence. As your knowledge of duty of care and key duty situations will have been examined elsewhere, you should concentrate your revision on the elements of breach of duty of care and resulting damage: Issues studied: · The role of reasonableness in establishing liability in negligence · Establishing standard of care in key duty situations: drivers; children; medical practitioners · Issues around causation · The role of the judiciary in establishing negligence – how far do they follow legal rules and how far are their judgments influenced by policy considerations. When preparing your essay consider the authorities in relation to the key issues. This will assist you to understand the topic and prepare you to provide relevant answers to the actual question on the examination paper. Just as in problem solving, it is the ability to make good use of the authorities to provide an answer to a specific question that distinguishes the honours student. You should concentrate on the judgments of the cases that you have been asked to read and study in depth during the course. However, other authorities will also be of use when considering the above issues. Key authorities: Nettleship v Weston Mansfield v Weetabix Mullin v Richards Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee Bolitho v City v Hackney Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority (CA &HL) Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board McGhee v National Coal Board Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services (as in lecture notes) Wright v Lodge Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 Compensation Act 2006 Social Action Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 SECTION B GROUP THREE: Economic Loss (Essay) As with any question, essay or problem, we are not looking for a memorised script of unfocused, descriptive material. We have warned you about this in tutorials. We do not want to see “packaged notes”. At best these will scrape a pass and at worst, you will simply fail. Read the essay writing guide linked to Moodle for basic material on approaching an essay. Focus on:- 1. The law as it relates to establishing a duty of care. In particular, consider the roles of policy and legal principle. 2. Reflecting on the different policy considerations and how they affect decisions on duty in the range of economic loss cases we have looked at. Case analysis and academic articles would be really useful here. 3. Reading across the three main areas of economic loss and analyse the coherence or incoherence of approach taken by the courts e.g. Spartan Steel as compared with Hedley Byrne as compared with Murphy v Brentwood. You could also consider coherence of decisions within just one area e.g. negligent misstatement cases, comparing the different decisions on duty applied to different professionals. 4. Good analysis and where it can be found in economic loss in relation to negligent statements, advice and provision of services in particular professions Key cases include:- Caparo v Dickman HL Hedley Byrne v Heller HL Spartan Steel Alloys v Martin CA Morgan Crucible v Hill Samuel CA White v Jones HL Spring v Guardian Assurance HL Henderson v Merrett Syndicates Ltd HL Smith v Eric S Bush HL Merrett v Babb CA Scullion Bank of Scotland CA Murphy v Brentwood District Council HL GROUP FOUR Vicarious Liability (Problem) You should have a good grasp of all the material for this topic as I can mix and match many variables. Be sure to know how to establish an employee or someone who is ‘akin’ to an employee and know the difference between an employee and an independent contractor with related tests and cases. You should also be familiar with cases around intentional torts and the issues surrounding torts committed by borrowed employees or agency workers. The most complex material here is also the most topical and requires careful study. Look at the cases which explore what it means to be ‘akin’ to an employee and those that explore “course of employment” with a particular focus on Key cases include:- Catholic Child Welfare Society v Institute of the Brother of Catholic Schools UKSC Cox v MoJ UKSC Armes v Notts CC UKSC Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd, HL Weddall v Barchester Healthcare Ltd CA Wallbank v Wallbank CA Mattis v Pollock, CA Majrowski v St Thomas NHS Trust, HL Hawley v Luminar Leisure plc, CA Viasystems Ltd v Thermal Transfer Ltd CA Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Coggins v Griffiths HL Mohamud v Morrison Supermarkets Plc UKSC SECTION C GROUP FIVE: Psychiatric Injury (Essay question) Draw out the discussion around this controversial area of law. Approaches to primary and secondary victims have developed since Alcock, and so whilst a basic explanation of the law after Alcock is required, a good answer will reflect the slight shift in the law. Consider the structure of your answer · Basic explanation of primary and secondary victims · Consider and examine the development in the law since then in