the
reduced law dictionary (extracts)
the law in snippets of 101 words
by
Roderick Ramage, solicitor, www.law-office.co.uk
first
published in New Law Journal (newlaw.journal@lexisnexis.co.uk) on 3 July 2009
previous
extracts were published in NLJ on 19 September, 7 & 28 November and 12
December 2008, and
30 January, 28 February, 3 April and 15 & 19 May 2009
DISCLAIMER
These snippets are not advice to
any person (or at all) and may not be taken as a definitive statement of the
law in general or in any particular case. The author does not accept any
responsibility for anything that any person does or does not do as a result of
reading any of them, but does hope that at least some of them will raise a
smile.
annual leave and other time off
Some
North Sea oil rig workers, who worked two weeks on and two weeks off, claimed
that their employer ought not to have specified that their annual leave was to
be taken during the 26 weeks that they already had off, They wanted it to be taken in the remaining
26 weeks for which they were required to work.
The Scottish EAT in Transcreen Resources Ltd v
Russell (2009) rejected their claim. An
employer can tell employees when their annual leave is or is not to be taken,
but unscrupulous employers may not designate a series of weekends as annual
leave.
6.v.09
bailment
A bailment arises when one person
gives possession but not ownership of good to another. The leading case of Coggs
v Bernard (1703) identified six classes of bailment, but Jones on Bailment
(1781) identifies five: the gratuitous deposit of a chattel which the bailee is
to keep it for the bailor; the delivery of a chattel
to the bailee, who is to do something to or with it without reward; the
gratuitous loan of a chattel for the bailee to use; the pawn of a chattel as a
security; and the hire of a chattel for reward.
These categories are non-exclusive.
24.xii.08
BERR and Emerson
In the Companies Act 2006, as most other legislation,
the legislature tries both to micro-manage our lives and, Tartuffe-like, to
delight in enacting what the law already says.
Where does one start (or end)?
Look at, eg, the bureaucratic procedures in sections 288 to 300 and then
s282 saying what an ordinary resolution is.
Yet, with wanton inconsistency, the Act says nothing about a matter so
fundamental as how directors, apart from the first directors, are to be
appointed. Perhaps BERR employs normal
people amongst its robotic draftsman.
Shout “Emerson!” remembering his aphorism that consistency is the
hobgoblin of tiny minds.
24/05/09
odds-on litigation
There
is an urban myth about a man who was importuned in the street by a woman
demanding £1,000 compensation for a dog bite.
The man paid the £1,000 she demanded, and she wrote a receipt and limped
off. When his friend asked why he paid,
as he didn't even have a dog, he replied: "You never know how it might
have gone in court," There is a
litigation rule of thumb that you have a one in eight chance of losing a cast
iron case, and a similar chance of winning a hopeless one. He should have settled for £125.
21.v.09
provision for family - dependency
A
sculptress, Mary Spencer, was godmother to Hetty and
provided family accommodation to the latter and her siblings. Miss Spencer paid Hetty's
fees at the RBS and, over the years, when Hetty had
financial difficulties, lent her money.
After Miss Spencer's death, age 92, Hetty
issued proceedings for reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance
(Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.
The judge found that Miss Spencer had not assumed responsibility for Hetty who was therefore not entitled under the Act, and,
besides, reasonable provision had been made in the will. The CA agreed in Baynes
v Hedger and ors (2009).
22.v.09
slow track litigation
In
1994 the CA gave judgement in proceedings, Crown v City of London, started in
1613 by King James I, who claimed ownership of Smithfield Market. The judgement turned largely on the
construction of a charter granted on 18 October 1638 by King Charles I to the
Mayor and Commonalty and Citizens of the City of London concerning the site of
Smithfield Market, following earlier charters of 1444 and 1505. The words "declare and grant" were
apt to convey the land to the Mayor etc in fee simple, but the grant was
subject to certain restrictions which were enforceable by injunction.
27.iv.09
Shakespeare’s evidence
In
1604 Stephen Belott, an
apprentice to a wigmaker named Christopher Mountjoy, married the latter’s
daughter, Mary. William Shakespeare, who
was a lodger at Mountjoy’s house, acted
as matchmaker and negotiated a dowry of £60.
Mountjoy failed to pay it, which led to the proceedings Belott v Mountjoy (1612) in the Court of
Requests. Shakespeare was a key witness,
but he testified that he could not remember the terms of the financial
settlement and failed to testify at a second hearing. Ultimately the Court referred the case to the
French Church for arbitration, at which an award of £6/13/4d was made.
16.vi.09
vexatious requests for information
The
Freedom of Information Act 2000 s14 excuses a public authority from dealing with
a request for information, which it considers to be vexatious. The information commissioner in case
reference FS50157445/445 30/10/2008 supported the Cheshire Constabulary's
refusal to provide information about its coat of arms and logo, and other matters. In Stephen Carpenter v IC and Stevenage BC
(EA/2008/0046) the Information Tribunal upheld the commissioner's decision
agreeing with the council that the persistent requester was vexatious and
warned that in the future costs in significant amounts could be awarded. Updated guidance notes on vexatious requests
were issued in December 2008: www.ico.gov.uk.
20.iv.09
copyright Roderick Ramage
click below to