Friday, August 19, 2011
Yesterday those students who are not located in Europe got their results. Of those I know, I saw a couple happy campers with 71's and the rest a mixed bag. Happily not many failures at all but a few disappointments. Hard to put rhyme or reason to the grades as you don't really know how people wrote or how they were graded. I would say that is perhaps the worst part of the school - lack of material feedback on your work. To be sure you get a grade, I honestly believe it is probably one you merit, but you lack a rationale behind it. It is a tradeoff to be sure but given the cost of getting feedback, I think I would prefer to go without...
Monday, August 8, 2011
Legal Bite: Why Should You Join one of The Inns of Court?: Last week I posed a question on TraineeSolicitor.co.uk which was used as inspiration for Legal Bite's post. It gives an overview of the different Inns of Court which any aspiring barrister would need to join. I thought it would be worth it to share the link with you.
Monday, August 1, 2011
According to an interesting book I've been reading, the word ‘tort’ is derived from the Latin tortus, meaning ‘twisted'. Somehow I seem to remember that a battle formation for the legions was called the tortus due to the shape formed when they interlocked their shield above and around the group. More important for this blog, is that tortus came to mean ‘wrong’ and it is still so used in French when one says ‘J’ai tort’ for ‘I am wrong’. However I have to say that there is nothing wrong so far with my study of the subject of tort even if the path is a bit twisted at times. I really do enjoy it, especially the bits on negligence which have been the main focus so far. The cases are really quite interesting to read (albeit a bit tragic) and the logic behind the reasoning is exciting to see develop over time. I have to confess that would find myself hard pressed to find some logical limitations on negligence although I think the judges involved have given it a fairly good shake. For example when I first heard of the judgment in Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police I thought that it was unjust. However after reading more about it I tend to agree with the decision. Particularly the claim that if family members were to have suffered nervous shock watching the events unfold via television a claim of action would be better brought against the broadcaster rather than the police. Also the notion of dividing people into primary and secondary victims seems to be of benefit. Still it is hard to find the right place to draw a line when one is liable under the tort of negligence - I guess that is why the requirement of "fair, just or reasonable’ is so subjective.