Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

law 2 revision, negligence, :<3:, :star:, :tada: - Coggle Diagram

- - - - On the Enabling Act
        
        sets out scope of delegated powers
        
        sets out who can exercise delegated powers
        
        sets out procedure that must be followed
        
        can be repealed
        
        allows Parliament to set limits, change, or remove powers - upholds Parliamentary sovereignty
        
        if the powers set out are drawn widely - can make it hard to bring judicial review proceedings
        
        gives too much power from legislature to the executive, contrary to separation of powers
      - Affirmative resolutions
        
        both houses of Parliament must approve within 40 days
        
        allows Parliament to debate and vote on DL - upholding Parliamentary sovereignty and allowing proper scrutiny of issues
        
        time-consuming procedure - only applies if provided for in the EA, most SIs not subject to it
      - negative resolutions
        
        draft order laid before Parliament, if no objections within 40 days becomes law
        
        quick - allows DL to be implemented without undue delay
        
        MPs can still raise objections
        
        most SIs become law this way with no debate or vote
        
        unfair or poorly drafted SIs may not be detected
      - Joint Committee on SIs
        
        considers all SIs, made of members from both houses balanced proportionally - asses technical qualities of SIs not merits - decides whether to raise it with Parliament
        
        allows for detailed scrutiny of DL
        
        should detect SIs that are unclear or defective
        
        should detect SIs that are ultra vires or make unexpected use of powers
        
        cannot consider the merits of DL
        
        can only report issues to Parliament
        
        concerns may not be addressed by Parliament
    - - judicial review
        
        procedural ultra vires
        
        beyond the procedures set out in the EA Aylesbury Mushrooms
        
        substantive ultra vires
        
        beyond the powers set out in EA R v Home Secretary
        
        unreasonable
        
        Strickland
        
        Wednesbury - so unreasonable that no reasonable authority would ever consider imposing it
        
        voids the legislation
        
        enables ordinary citizens to take action in order to hold govt to account if unlawful decisions are made
        
        allows individuals to object to unfair treatment - upholds separation of powers as the Court can act as a check on the arbitrary exercise of power by the executive
        
        Court's ability to declare DL void is powerful for addressing ultra vires legislation - can quash unreasonable or illegal legislation
        
        however of limited use as Courts cannot ifx problems
        
        judicial review expensive -no legal aid available - contrary to rule of law, everyone should be equal before the law
        
        arguably voiding too harsh - doesn't allow for reform
- - - - can claim for injury, death, or property damage
      - usual rules of causation - Barnett factual 'but for' - Wagon Mound remoteness - Sparrow v Andre - no intervening acts
      - duty does not arise for obvious dangers but does for real danger Edwards v Sutton - beyond any minor defects Rochester Cathedral
      - S.2(2) - standard of care that will keep the visitor 'reasonably safe for the purpose of their visit
      - reasonably safe is not completely safe Laverton
      - s.2(3) - standard increased for child visitors Moloney, unless assumed to be accompanied Phipps - standard lowered for specialist visitors aware of risks Roles v Nathan**
  - - - can claim for injury or death - not property
      - usual rules of causation - Barnett factual Wagon Mound remoteness Sparrow v Andre no int acts
      - duty of care only from condition of property not D's actions
      - S.1(3) - duty arises if occupier is
        
        aware or has reasonable grounds to believe danger exists
        
        aware or has reasonable grounds to believe someone would be in the vicinity
        
        reasonably expected to protect against it
      - Donoghue - no duty as not foreseeable someone would jump in harbour at night
      - S.1(4) - standard of care to keep premises 'reasonably safe'
        
        considers likelihood and severity of outcome
        
        Ratcliffe - 7ft fence with lock sufficient
        
        Tomlinson - reasonable precautions
      - s.1(5) - signs may discharge duty
- - - - D permitted by an Act of Parliament to carry out activity - nuisance is an unavoidable consequence
      - not a nuisance so long as without negligence and done with reasonable care
      - Allen public > private interest
    - - no liability if D has committed a nuisance for 20 years without objection
      - C can move to nuisance and use defence Sturges v Bridgman
  - - - natural event too big to foresee or guard against Nichols v Marsland
    - - deliberate and unforeseen act of a person whom D has no control over Rickards v Lothian
    - - if authorised by Parliament as long as D isn't negligent
    - - if accumulation benefits both C and D Dunse
    - - where solely C's fault Dunn
- - - - Ready Mix Concrete - economic reality
        
        mutuality of obligation
        
        control -accepted by employee
        
        other factors consistent with an employment contract - such as uniform
      - integration test - who benefits
      - Yewes v Noakes - control test - if told what to do and how to do it
    - - Barclay's Bank - no liability for true independent contractors
      - Christian Brothers - relationship sufficiently akin to employer/employee and a close connection between said relationship and the tort
      - Mohamud v Morrisons - abuse occurred on grounds but still counts
  - - - Hilton v Thomas Burton
      - Smith v Stayes
      - A&W Hempbill v Williams
- - - - Pecuniary losses
        
        los of earnings between tort and trial
        
        medical expenses
        
        special facility expenses (living accommodations)
    - - Pecuniary losses
        
        future loss of earnings - calculated as annual net loss x years
        
        other forms of financial support deducted from total (entitled to an award for future care)
      - Non-pecuniary loses
        
        pan and suffering - impossible to measure so Judicial College sets tariffs
        
        loss of amenity
        
        damages for ijury - injuries itemised and sums awarded based on precedents
    - - lump sum - usual, can run out, Supreme Court Act 1981 - if known condition could deteriorate can go back to court
      - structured settlements - practiced more, Damages Act 1996 - can have instalments with reassessment dates
- - - - Hunter v Canary Wharf - C must have a legal interest in the land
    - - O'Callaghan - D had continued and adopted the nuisance
      - causes or allows unlawful interference with use/enjoyment of the land
      - landlords liable for tenants
    - - Malone v Lastey - Physical Damage to C's land
      - loss of amenity - Wheeler - smell- Kennaway - noise
    - - locality - Halsey - tankers in housing estate
      - duration - Kimbolton - short but physical damage
      - degree of interference - Murdoch - no nuisance from droning as road nearby
      - sensitivity of C - Walker - would it affect an ordinary person
      - social utility - Dennis - was nuisance but damages awarded as provided national benefit
      - malice - Emmett v Hollywood Sliver Fox Farm
      - Miller - cricket balls in garden - not
  - - - artificial not natural (reservoir not a lake)
      - Giles v Walker - self seeded thistles natural
    - - likely to cause mischief if it escapes
      - likelihood of escape irrelevant
    - - not commonplace
      - Richards v Lothian - tap overflowing was ordinary
      - Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - chemical storage
      - Harooni - car with petrol not unusual, storing 200,000L of petrol is
    - - Read - no escape as C on D's land
      - must escape to premises D doesn't control
    - - Cambridge Water v Eastern Counties Leather - 1 1/2 miles away so doesn't count
      - personal injury doesn't count