Describe the sources of law in the UK
Answer 2 Like everything, law is derived from somewhere. There are 5 sources of law. Common Law was introduced in the year 1066 by William the Conqueror. Before the year 1066, only localised laws existed. In 1285, the statute of Westminster was established. It was the first act of parliament. 865 saw the development of Case law. Case law is based on ‘precedent’ and known as ‘Judge made law’. ‘European communities act 1972’ formed the European law. The whole of Europe is bound by the laws introduced by this source. The last source is known as the Minor sources of law. Before 1066, there was no national legal system. Only localised laws existed. When William the Conqueror dominated England, he realised that England needs a centralised system of justice which he could control. So he went around England with his advisors listening to people’s problems and the advisors would give judgment according to what they saw fit. This travelling court system became known as the ‘Curia Regis’ (King’s court). This is where the common law developed. The local laws were replaced with the national law which was common to everyone hence the name ‘Common law’. There were however, a few problems which were raised with implementing Common law. . Common law runs on the basis of ‘Stare decisis’ (binding precedent). This means that the court is bound and has to
Advantages and Disadvantages of Purposive Approach
Discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the purposive approach The purposive approach is probably the broadest approach of all the rules of interpretation. It is certainly more flexible than either the literal rule or the golden rule which tend to concentrate upon the meaning of individual words or phrases. In trying to fulfil parliament’s purpose, it is surely respectful of parliamentary supremacy. It also allows the law to cover more situations and it can even be used when science or technology is unknown when an act was passed . In the Quintavalle case, the court used the approach to decide that word embryo in the HEFA 1990 could mean either a human embryo where fertilisation was complete or an embryo created by a new method that did not require fertilisation and had not been possible in 1990. This is much more forward-looking than the mischief rule which requires courts to look backwards at the gap in the common law before deciding what Parliament intended to do. Accordingly, the approach usually leads to better justice in individual cases and it also allows judges to consider the concerns of government and parliament at the time of passing the act, as well as views of others such as the Law Commission and leading academics, which is surely a good thing. It is the most modern approach and reflects the approach used in Europe, thus encouraging our judges to make
Duty of Care
Duty of care In tort law, a duty of care is legal obligation imposed on an individual requiring a standard of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foresee-ably harm others. The courts had decided that a duty should be owed, E.G road accidents, bailments or dangerous goods. The neighbor test has been made to expound such a general test, the neighbor principle means that you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee, would be likely to injure your neighbor. With the term 'neighbor' its meant people who are so closely and directly affected by your act, E.g drivers and road users, doctors and patients. The neighbour principle was established in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson, this case was about a snail in the ginger beer bottle, its where two friends went out for a drink, friend of Mrs Donoghue ordered for a drink, as Mrs Donoghue started to drink from the ginger beer bottle a contaminated snail fell out of it, therefore Mrs donoghue suffered several injuries, Mrs Donoghue had no direct or indirect claim against the manufacturer based on contractual obligations because she did not purchase the product but yet she sued the manufacturer. Now the requirements are it that must be satisfied before a duty of care is held to exist were laid down in Caparo Industries v Dickman. There are three elements, these are; (a)
