Entry 39

Feeling better today and I ended up going to the Tottennham vs Apoel match (Spurs won, so all is good in the world).  So this is another post typed on the cell, so apologies for any incorrect spelling mistakes or grammar issues.

We had an odd Equity lecture today. It was the last for the term and we spent most of it going through some revision material. It barely lasted an hour, however if we are ahead of schedule, why not? The main lesson from the lecture, is to make sure that my work is up to date before the end of the holidays, as waiting for the end of the year is just a death wish.

This was followed by Tort were we started to examine cases involving visitor liability. Understandably, children are given free reign over the world (most of the time) and are not seen as fully responsible. The issue of a rational agent vs Clapham omnibus man was evident again. Listening to some of the cases you think: “Really, how did you think jumping into a pond head first was a smart decision?” While the courts agreed with me in this particular case, when dealing with problem questions I still need to remind myself that law accepts the fallibility of man and that I shouldn’t be going too hard on the people I read about.

Finally I will quickly talk about my public law work. For the class on Friday we have to represent a German citizen post Brexit who has lost their right to work. And quite frankly I think he is screwed. There is no international treaty to help him (just loads of recommendations), as he is not a refugee or an asylum seeker. Can parliament do this? Yeah, it can do what ever it wants. Would it? Maybe not intentionally…but hey, have you seen the UK government? They make the simple look impossible and the make the impossible a fantasy.

Entry 38

For those not in touch with me personally, I have not been well over the last few days and have been experiencing a migraine over the weekend where I was bedridden and even turning on the lights was too much. What this led to, was the most unproductive weekend of my life in ages, though understandably so. What this meant, is this week I have not any work prepared for my classes. Not something I recommend, this morning I was struggling to stand, but the Gujarati inside of me just screamed that I needed to make value for money (regarding the course, I mean, it is 11K!).

Today I started off with Equity, and I couldn’t keep my eyes on my computer screen. It was just far too bright, and the room in general with the lights on was too much. Honestly, I didn’t gain too much from the tutorial as I was feeling dizzy. I could have gone home after this, but I decided to go the public law lecture as I was already there.

I felt better in the lecture, though my laptop was playing up a bit in the first-half. We had a quick recap of judicial review and then moved onto domestic tribunals. It’s not that interesting of a topic (at least for me) when looking at the rules of dog racing and performance-enhancing drugs. Or even horses for that matter. When it comes to domestic tribunals, we were told that if it was a consensual relationship and that the body doesn’t complete governing functions, you cannot bring a case to a public law court as it is a private matter. Here begins the difference between the two sets of law. I want to do more reading on this before commenting as I think there is more overlap than accepted at the moment but this is based more on belief and not on law.

Finally, we had a  land tutorial were we looked at mortgages. Now we haven’t covered mortgages fully in lecture, so having a class on it felt premature. However, in the breaks, I was able to get some questions done. My answers when coming to an opinion (not the law) seem to be far harsher than any legal bodies. This is not too worrying regarding my legal career as I do not intend become a judge. I link this to my rational agent perspective, where I do not think of the Clapham Omnibus man, but the fully rational being with full information. While there is no pressing problem, this shortfall in economics seems to be showing more cracks daily where it becomes a more untenable position to hold; especially considering the case law.

Entry 35

Today I had the doubleheader of Equity & Trusts and Tort Law.

In Equity, we continued to look at secret trusts and this week we examined the use of half secret trusts. There was one glaring thing to note from the class, is that you cannot be the beneficiary and trustee of a secret trust. That would just make you the legal and equitable owner, in two different capacities. The courts will only strike this stupidity down. At least there are only a few cases to learn.

We also looked at the justifications for secret trusts and I can only agree with my lecturer. It doesn’t make sense. There is just an inconsistency in the way the Lords have gone about justifying the laws of trusts. When I decide to use a secret trust (of course I am going to use one), then I would definitely use a fully secret trust. Just a much cleaner and more straightforward tool.

In Tort, we did not spend that much time on cases, though it was a relatively short lecture. Instead, we spent quite a bit of time in the lecture going over an exam question which was not allowed. This was quite useful, as I have been grappling with this issue for the last couple of weeks. So, the process of looking at what is expected with new examples was not only informative but also reassuring.

Entry 31

These Champions League games are definitely prohibiting me from writing as much as do. However, I’m not going to stop watching Spurs, I have a relationship with the club. No relationship is too strong of a word. Bond? No, relationship. I’ve even written a post about it (click here to read about it, and here for the follow up).

Let’s start with yesterday. The first thing was an equity and trust tutorial, and it was quite a difficult topic for me. We were discussing the constitutions of trusts. While there are not loads and loads of cases, I will have to spend some of my weekends re-reading the textbook. It is quite difficult to understand what is happening from the off. Thankfully the class helped clear up some things, but again my answer to the problem question is seems to be off the mark. It’s not that I’m not misusing cases. Instead, I keep on messing my length. I seem to have a paragraph at most. I just struggle to go through the cases in as much detail, rather than (what I do) just quote them. I need to show that I understand the circumstances, well I think so, but I have to book some office hours to talk over this. I definitely cannot work this out in the blog post. (Shame. I know)

Following this I had the first lecture in administrative law which I have to say was a waste of time. All the information could have been sent in an email (or was already there in the handout). We spent about 40 minutes talking about the next section of our Public Law course. However, we have such limited time on the course, it could have been used more efficiently. Looking at my notes, I wrote: “Stop talking about lectures in the META!” He’s done it again! Again! When we finally spent 30 minutes talking about the judicial review system, it picked up, and I hope that it relates to Tort law as this is about Governmental Organs being held accountable. As somebody who lives and breathes politics (current affairs and academics) this is one of the most exciting areas. Especially in the news. The number of times you see a department failing may seem worrying. However, it is also a sign that their people are fighting to fix the system. People believe that system can work. That’s pretty positive.

Following that, I had what can only be described as a nightmare. No, that’s too positive of a word. Maybe a tormenting experience of Land Law. It wasn’t because the tutor was horrible, it’s just the first time I really felt out my depths. Before and during my tutorial. I read two different book chapters on the topic, and I still didn’t get. Then in the class, the tutor just breezed through the topi. I was just lost. I wrote down loads of notes, but I there is far more work for me to sort out in the coming days. Need to work my knowledge of the Statute as well.

I also had student-staff meeting.Let’s just say I’m glad I bailed early for Tottenham.

Today (Yeah, I underlined it.)

Started the day with equity and trusts which was, as always, an excellent lecture. We ended the issue of non-charitable trusts. How can we have things that are not businesses or charities legally hold property (think political parties, though I’m sure that some people would claim that their party is for the public good. My opinion on this issue, don’t associate with these people. Plenty of fish in the sea, as they say).  Not too tricky of a situation to sort out, in equity. Just go through a contractual approach, with a network of rights and rulebooks. Also make sure in the rule, that no one can walk away with the money. We moved onto secret trusts and how they work. I would love to tell you about it. However, it is a secret…. Nah I’m just messing with you. Two types, fully secret and half-secret. This whether or not they are mentioned on the will. Now you might be against it, why should you be able to hide your intentions? Well, first of all, you have the right to privacy. Why should you tell, though there are the people who say: Doing nothing wrong, nothing to hide. Well, my first thought is if that’s the case with their internet history; What are they doing online? Missing out on sooo much.  You might want to protect someone. Why should the family know that I preferred one person to another and that’s why I gave them all the details to my banking accounts in a diary (or whatever valuable property you want to insert, say a family heirloom)? Yes, some people will abuse it (like the issue with pets last week), but if people want to do something. They’ll find a way. (yeah, the constant capitalism indoctrination I keep pushing). The only significant thing for you (the reader) to remember. Communicate your wishes before death. Not the hardest thing to do.

Finally, I had tort law where we looked at vicarious liability and how this relates to employers being liable for what their employees did. As always in Tort, we looked at loads and loads of cases. Not much to say, but sometimes the courts (in my opinion) have got things totally wrong. The actions by the employees are sometimes would make an imbecile look like a Nobel Prize Winner for Physics. Who thinks smoking at a petrol station, is a good idea?!? Fuel + Flame = Explosion. It’s not rocket science (maybe not the best analogy, but you get my point). Utterly ridiculous.

Just like the length of this post. Damn! Nearly 1000 words. Hope this makes up for yesterday.

Entry 27

Today I had an exciting day with a double set of lectures followed by another representative meeting.

Before going into my lectures, there has been some change from my work as a course rep already. One major, being a change to timetabling for one group due to having too many hours in a row, which is against University policy. The downside for them though is that their class has been moved to Friday afternoon and they now have a few tutorials in a row. Not ideal, but’s only until the end of the term, but it is nice to see change quite rapidly. The other is having a more extended break between our two lectures today.

Today in Equity and Trust we focused on the beneficiary principle and within it the simple issue of Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts (NCPTs) which are essentially what it says on the tin (trusts that provide no public good). The problem resulting from them is the fact they can go on forever. Hence there are rules in the common law that limit their time span… Actually, I’m noting going to delve into how they are formed and all the issues revolving around them. I want to talk about the exemption of pets from the rule. So pets are allowed to be NCPTs mainly because someone generally has to look after the animal and we were given examples of these multi-millionaire animals. While the notion is ridiculous, it’s not unheard of for this happen. In the UK there is an issue with enforcement of how the money is spent, as the animal is unable to go to court and take legal action against the trustee. So the trustees could abuse their position. In this example, you also have the notion that next of kin could be wanting to harm the animal or try point out flaws in the trust, as they would be the beneficiaries of a resulting trust. However, I think that there a further question that could be raised. Can next of kin be a trustee? Well, yes (or I have really have messed up my basic understanding of how trusts work). So as there is apparently less tax involved in this method of trusts, could this not be used as a tax loophole? I’m going to have to get back to you and ask my lecturer.

In Tort Law we focused on Liability for Psychiatric Harm/Illness. As usual with Tort lectures, we spent most of the time cases. However, there has been continual, but gradual, change in the way that approaches this. This week I relied more on the lecture handout and making adjustments to that, rather than writing more on my A4 sheet. I found it more useful in paying attention, but due to the lack of workspace, it’s harder to have everything in front of you and still have a good writing area. The handou is in a book format and due to the size of the note cards, they do not line up well. I’ll probably adjust again next week.

Entry 23

Today was a slightly different Wednesday for me. While I usually just have Equity followed by Tort, today I headed into University quite early and decided to work on Contract Law. Hence I will jabber about my thoughts on it.

I don’t really talk about contract law on the blog, and that’s due to it being an online lecture and that I just spend time reading on it on the tube in bits and pieces. I’m a bit behind on it. Hence I came in early to do some work on it, but the more I read about it. The more common sense seems to apply to it. Nothing seems to be shocking or makes you wonder why did the judge rule that. The only frustrating bit, it’s the fallibility of people not doing things correctly. It is entirely possible that I’ve missed something. However, I do enjoy the format of lectures allowing me to study at my own pace.

After a morning in the library, I was in back with Equity, and we had finally left the terrifying thought of formalities and moved onto the constitutions of trusts. The lecture was entertaining as the cases involved with the topic are just so bizarre that all you can do is smile. They are somewhat unfortunate in some cases, and others make you think, who acts like this? Equity is becoming my favourite topic, slowly but surely.

After Equity was followed by Tort. The, unfortunately, follows straight after Equity, and it doesn’t give you that time to freshen up your mind. The great thing about Tort is that the lectures are really really useful! I always say that it is just about cases and that has not changed. When going through the defences of negligence claims today, I now have a briefcase summary of all the cases that we went through today and all the necessary extra information around them. I am starting to appreciate the case focus in Tort as it helps bring context of the rule that is used by the courts. I’ve continued using the note card method, and in the lectures, I’ve essentially given up writing general notes and just moved onto the cards. The only thing to really notice from the lecture is that you can’t sue our getaway driver for negligence if they crash. Shocking!

 

Entry 22

Welcome back, a new week but same old me.

Today started with a tutorial in Equity and Trusts, and we looked at the issue of formalities. I cannot reiterate how mind-bending this topic is sometimes. Thankfully this is the hardest part of the course, and it comes in early in the course. The rest of the class and myself are finding the topic a bit difficult to grapple with, and this was not helped by having an online lecture for this topic, but c’est la vie. Thankfully the tutorial was useful as we did go through the issues of formalities step by step and having done the work beforehand for the worked example it was easier to go through. Though if you were to peek at my notes, the most likely response would be: is that even English? A friend asked for them to take them to her class and after 2 seconds she said: “It’s okay Hanik.” The key to formalities (or what it seems to be, is the understanding the difference between equitable and legal ownership as well as knowing what type of trust it is. The reason there is confusion (or at least in the cases we are analysing) is that our appellants are trying to avoid tax. This results in them avoiding doing the simplest thing, which is to put it writing with unambiguous language.

 

This was followed by a lecture in Public Law. We began by continuing on what we started last week: The Scope of Judicial Review. The case of GCHQ shows us the change in trend from looking at whether a law should be under judicial review not if it were statute or prerogative law, but to justiciable or non-justiciable. This seems to leave issues that are not part of the judicial review to matters that are regarded as political in nature in general. The best example of this (which is the topic of next weeks class) is the Miller case (though that is also about the need for parliamentary review over prerogative power). Even with this change, we saw the “finding” of prerogative powers in the courts of keeping the peace and how this relates to the usage of prerogative powers when there is a potential clash with the statute.

We then moved onto a whirlwind tour of the jurisprudence of the ECJ. I say whirlwind as our lecturer said that we have already covered most of this in our EU law lectures. And he wasn’t joking as we went through 42 slides in about 40 minutes. There was far more information on it.

I had to miss my land law tutorial (don’t worry I’m going to office hours for it) to go the first Staff-Student Liason Meeting. So now, I’m going to type up my notes and send a very Hanik email for the official unofficial minutes.

Entry 20

Alright, I’m still a bit high from yesterday’s win. But can you really blame me? Spent the whole day with a massive grin on my face (which is quite usual for me come to think about it or see any of my photos…). Today I was back into the thick of things with EU Law tutorial& lecture, with Land law in between.I’ll quickly start with yesterday, which was a double whammy of Tort and Equity.

Yesterday saw the beginning of my new process of using note cards (see attached picture). I actually found this a magnificent way to get cases down in lecture as well as you for tutorial preparation. As each case is on a small note card, it forces me to just stick to the main details of the case and the decisions by the judge. All in all, this is beneficial for keeping things in order as well being used for revision in the future as I am making flashcards as we go on. I definitely prefer this to mind maps as I can always just write a new card if I make too many errors or find that I want to change things on the card. Maybe that’s part of the perfectionist inside of me. Don’t like to see lots of crossed out things from a resource I wish to learn from. (though if you were to see my A4 notes in lecture, boy or boy is it messy)

This was after an Equity Lecture where I kept on with my business and where we explored formalities. I’m going, being honest with the fact that I’m still grappling with the concept of formalities and probably to spend a bit of time over the weekend re-reading the cases and the and the textbook. The one major thing that I did take away from the issue of formalities is that by just doing the paperwork correctly; saves everyone a heck of a time and that being clear and precise is worth its weight in gold.

Today I started my day pinching myself, to check that last night wasn’t a dream…I mean…

Today started with my EU tutorial where we spent the majority of our time discussing the mechanics of Article 50. The triggering, the process of how it works and the consequences of the Article. Hopefully, I want to go into a full Brexit rant again but sometimes it just really annoying to see how people don’t understand one of the most crucial issues of our time (in Britain). In class, we talked about the vagueness of the Article and with such broad scope how this is detrimental in some ways; no one expected it to be triggered thus not fleshed out. In other ways, positive; I’ll say that it is positive because countries may leave for different reasons and this having a strict set of things that one must negotiate about, might just be a waste of time. We also looked at the reasoning of why the British government wants to start negotiating the trade deal as soon as possible and why the EU is using its’ hand to wait longer (as there is that two year limit in the treaty). This led onto the why there may need to be a transition period for non-business reasons but rather simplifying the legal route to a free trade agreement. I then brought up the fact the Article doesn’t mention us withdrawing our letter of notifying us leaving (hence saying lol jk Yurop. We’re staying fam, it was only a prank!).  Basically, it’ll probably go to the ECJ where the UK would have to fight to stay in and that the other nations might just want to throw us out. We did also discuss supremacy, but I’ve written quite a bit so far.

Then we had Land law which was just looking at propriety rights and how they transfer depending on the exchange (see section 288/29 of the Land Registration Act 2002). I wish I could say anything more, other than this, but it is a dense topic (quite rightly). Land law is becoming my favourite module, due to it’s adherence to rules to the letter.

I finally had my final lecture of the day, which was a return to EU Law. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to write this but; THE TREATIES MATTER! Don’t bother criticising EU law until you wrap your head around this concept. It just really helps you put things into perspective when there a decision is made that seems out of place. We spent the majority of the lecture looking at how directives work and the implementations into the domestic courts worked. Essentially directives (not in themselves,  but from the case law resulting from them) give the citizens the power to the government to court over the failure to implement EU law. Why is this important, the common market requires regulation and the best people to regulate the market? The people who gain the most from the market! The consumers. I mean the citizens!

There’s probably more I can say on the topic, but I’ve typed out far more than intended to make up for yesterday (though I wouldn’t change it).

Entry 14

Today was a tripleheader of Equity, Public and Land Law. However, more important than all three, Tottenham played Real Madrid at the Santiago Bernabeu, so as an avid Spurs fan that has eaten up into my time to write this blog post.

In today’ tutorial for Equity and trusts, we continued to examine trusts and the purposes for today’s class we spent our day looking at discretionary trusts. What I took from the class (which is relevant to all the areas of law) is the importance of wording when describing what is happening in the trust, i.e. is this a trust or a power of appointment. While in writing them we care about the words, this might not have been the case for the settler, so we must also consider the importance of the meaning (or intent) of the settler. While the latter might not always be upheld, especially if the wording is loose, it should not just be disregarded.  That is to say, the use of precatory words do not create trusts, but nor do they prevent trusts.

Then I had my lecture in public law. We have continued to look at the result of cases regarding common law to create retrospective laws, which seems to be fine ( the example of marital rape) but don’t seem okay when Parliament does so (the Burmah Oil example). I do not think that is a problem in a legal sense for Parliament to have retrospective laws, Parliament is sovereign. It can do what it wants. Putting on my political scientist hat for a few minutes; they won’t do whatever pleases them or suits them due to game theory. While Parliament as an institution can do whatever it wants, MPs cannot. They are bound to their electorate and baring a civil war, or a revolution will be at the will of the people (precisely not what the Daily Mail refers to, I jest). Also, Parliament has to deal with foreign governments, and if they wish to conduct business with them over time (repetitive game), then they have little interest to defect to changing what they agreed to in the past (bit more commentary on Brexit: Britain will give money to the EU decades after leaving (it’s the pensions that have already been agreed. Don’t like it? Tough, we decided to it and if we want to prove to others that we are going to keep our word when coming to future trade deals. No project fear, just bleeding reality).

Gone slightly off topic…

Finally, we had our first tutorial in land law. I must say that the change in preparations really paid off. While I did not contribute to the class, I was able to stay on top of what everyone saying and understand points being raised. And as always, Land Law is about being anal, though not seemingly in the case eofManchester Aiport Plc v Dutton. While I would like to go on. I have far surpassed my word limit if you want to know more, just shoot me a message.

PS. Hugo Lloris, what a man!

Entry 11

Big news for me personally today (still relating to the GDL), I was made a course representative: with no election. This meant that I have continued my streak of entering positions of authority with no backing of my fellow students. Whose said that democracy was alive and well with students?
To more academic issues, today a doubleheader of Equity and Trusts followed up by a Tort Law, which resulted in four hours of lectures in a row. This was followed by a career fair in law.

Today’s lecture in equity and trusts was nothing special, and we went over the terms of a will and what types of trusts are formed depending on the language that is used and how this effect claims for the will. The most interesting thing regarding this part of the law is the fact that cases are dated (not that they are out of date, but just…old) and this due to no one litigating these issues anymore. Ambiguity is good for lawyers, to allow them to manoeuvre within the law, but is it the best thing if we are not clear on what specific tests (how do we identify what type of trust) mean? I’m not sure if it does. I can see the arguments for, but does this ambiguity make it better for the everyday person? No, especially according to rational choice theory. How can one make optimal decisions, if one does not know the outcome of the decisions? The problem is, no one will litigate on the vague tests, as there is very little to gain. Maybe time for statute?

Tort, as last time is just case after case. After case. I guess, what is most remarkable so far from tort is the concept of reasonable person and more unclear terms; such as what is the magnitude of risk? These are terms that can easily be interpreted in various ways, and while I understand that precedent is vital here (hence the bucket loads of cases), but the philosopher within me asks the question: who sets a precedent? Looking at what Denning said about the importance of cricket in some of the cases (quite rightly in my opinion), it lacks objectivity. I am not sure why, but this does irk me for some reason. I’ll hopefully be able to come back to this and fully explain why I feel this way. The only other thing to note from tort law is the poorly written statute that is written. I cannot believe that some of the best-educated people in the country come up with drivel that I am sure could be done better b myself. And I’ll admit at this stage, I would terrible at writing statute. Maybe there is hope for me to go into politics eventually…