Today marked the beginning of tutorials for me. Today’s class was in Equity, like the lecture, it was more of an introductory class, and thus we didn’t actually discuss anything of importance or of much interest. It was the first time that our group, at City you’re in the same group for the tutorials for the whole year. So we started with a simple going around the class and introducing ourselves and then asking a question about equity or providing an observation from our readings and then relating this to some of the preset questions in the tutorial guidelines. When called upon, I naturally introduced myself (without the tagline: Don’t Panic, It’s Hanik) and then presented an observation about one of the possible remedies in equity: an injunction. I suggested that injunctions don’t make sense as a solution anymore, from my limited understanding as they are easy to usurp in today’s information age. I gave the example of celebrities using injunctions in the press to stop court dealings being published in England and Wales, but if I (as a bystander) know there was an injunction, the first thing I would do is go on twitter and see who it was. I then pointed out from reading Private Eye, that the remedy is not readily accessible to the general public (due to the costs). Thus with it not working that well and not available to all, it doesn’t fit into the notion of equity, which is fairness (yes I understand equity isn’t about the Chancery’s opinion anymore, but more on precedent now). The tutor took the point that injunctions can go beyond the borders, but that is a slow development, but happening phenomena. However, he became a bit focused on that costs side of using equity and said that was part of the realities of life, which while true; was not the focus of my question which was on injunctions alone. I guess I need to be clearer when asking questions in class.
Also, I had another lecture on the public law where we looked at the judicial review and the how this fits into the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. If parliament is sovereign, and its power is absolute, then what room is there for interpretation? This was represented to us with a poorly written hypothetical Act, and our client was trying to get around the law (without breaking it). What to do? So, we found the simplest solution and then went through the possible ways that a judge will use to decide what to do: to interpret or not to interpret. The orthodoxy is to not interpret, as then the courts are then legislating, not parliament. Thus is parliament is no longer the most powerful. The opposite view is that the courts do not create, but merely try and understand what Parliament meant and enforce that. This could be solved by Parliament created clearer laws, thus no issue. Where do I lie on the scale? I currently believe that it should be a strict reading of the statuary law as possible. To elaborate on “possible”: even if the absurd occurs, allow it. Only stop it if it infringes on the rights of others. Then put it on hold and then ask for Parliament to come back to you. Doesn’t seem that revolutionary, but sometimes it doesn’t have to be. Liked sliced bread, is the best thing since bread itself. Small change, big consequence.*
*the last two sentences are an inside joke.
P.S. I didn’t forget to upload yesterday. I just have Mondays off and have yet to come up with filler. Any ideas welcomed.