Geoffery Jack vs Wessex City Council - Assignment Example

Legal Method Practice Coursework 1. What were the material facts in the case? The material facts of this case were that the claimant, Geoffery Jack, while driving on highway at dawn suffered a terrible accident. The accident occurred as he was skidding across a road and hit the parapet of the bridge that rendered him almost paralysed. He alleged that the accident was caused due to the presence of ice on the highway and brought an action of damages against the Wessex County Council for their alleged failure to not only maintain the highway but also to ensure that the highway was free of snow and ice. The local authority in its defence argued this was not a part of its duty under Section 41(1) and appealed to the House of Lords after the lower court had held that the local authority had breached their duty. 2. Explain, in your own words, the legal issue(s) in the case The legal issues in this case were as follows: first, the council argued that under Section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 it was only under a duty to maintain the highway and this duty did not extend to, as Mr. Jack alleged, keeping the road free of snow and frost at all times. Second, the issue was to construe the exact meaning of the word “maintenance” and whether it could contain the duty to keep the snow and ice off the road. Third, the issue was the scope of the duty that had to be attributed to the local authority to maintain the highway. Was it an absolute duty? Was it based on negligence on nuisance? Fourth, whether the council at that point in time when the accident occurred was under a duty to maintain (meaning according to the one decided upon earlier) and did it breach that duty? 3. Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation, rules of language and/or presumptions do you consider that Lord Hoffmann employed in the case? Give reasons for your answer. It is likely that Lord Hoffman stuck to the literal rule of interpretation. When construing the meaning of the word “maintenance” he laid down the possible meanings of this word, alluding to “repair” whether that included maintenance or not. But he also mentions in line 218 that regardless of what meaning is attributed to the word “maintain” the material issue in this question is that of whether the council had a duty to ensure that no ice have been present on the road that morning. The purposive rule is seen applied where Lord Hoffman tries to observe the intention of the parliament (or the draftsman) and looks at the entire historical context to hold that as far as maintenance was concerned, the council was already carrying that out. In rules of language it could be said that Lord Hoffman made use of the ‘Ejusdem Generis’ as he quoted different meaning of maintenance in line 44. In determining whether a duty existed or not, the court clearly applies literal rule in holding that the council did not owe a duty to make sure that there was no snow – and it held that a duty to maintain only includes to maintain the fabric of the road and not to make sure no snow was ever present on the surface. Lastly, from line 156 to line 190 the court seems to be operating on the presumption that the common law has not changed and no legislation (1959 or 1980) purposed to change the common law, instead subsequent acts only codified it. 4. To what aids of statutory interpretation did Lord Hoffmann refer? Your answer must indicate whether such aids are ‘intrinsic’ or ‘extrinsic’. There is evidence that Lord Hoffman referred to long title of the Highway Act 1980 (line 53) and that constitutes as an intrinsic aid in statutory interpretation. Other instrinsic aids that he alluded to were the definitional section contained in the act itself (line 50). As far as extrinsic aids are concerned it can be concluded that the reference to Victorian times, and how the law of highways has changed since 16th century provided much help to the judges in interpreting whether the act itself contained a duty to remove snow or ice, in addition to maintaining the general fabric of the road. 5. Explain why the House of Lords was not bound by the majority decision in Snow v. Kent County Council [1977] in the case. According to the hierarchy of courts in the English Legal system the House of Lords can in certain compelling circumstances depart from Court of Appeal decisions. Since it is the highest appellate court in UK it has the power to reject CA decisions that it considers to be wrongly decided or are very old for any contemporary relevance. In this case, the judges found Lord Denning’s minority view to be more convincing than the majority view and hence took the liberty from departing from the latter. 6. Explain, in your own words, the ratio decidendi of Jack v. Wessex County Council [1999] The court held in this case that the Highway Act 1980 did not put a duty on local authorities to ensure that the roads were free of snow, ice or frost at all times. Instead, their duty was limited to repairing or maintaining the roads, and that extended to the surface or the fabric of the road only. The reason for this was held to that first, development of law had not allowed for such an incorporation to ‘read into law’ and second, the duty alleged by the claimant, Mr Jack, was held to be onerous for the local authority, as the latter was already doing its duty to ensure that the roads were safe for travelling. Part B of the Legal Method Practice Course work (Jack v Wesses CC) The proposition in question beckons a discussion of how Rachel would fund her defence against James and Co and about the cost implications for her. Firstly, Rachel could ask for legal aid from the government. This is how she would be able to fund her defence against James and Co. Legal aid is the name given to financial help by the government to people who cannot afford to bear the costs of cases. Legal constitutes legal help in getting professional advice that would make Rachel aware of her rights and will explain to her the possible course of action, secondly, if Rachel could qualify for legal aid she could also get aid to fund her representation in her case. However, Legal aid is dependent on certain conditions and there are certain criteria that Rachel might need to meet. The eligibility for legal aid will be determined by the Legal Services Commission. Legally, Rachel’s defence againt James and Co will be based on sexual harassment at work, unfair treatment and inappropriate atmosphere. Usually, problem falling under Employment law (Employment Rights Act and Employment Act 2002) are dealt with by the Employment Tribunal. This tribunal has been made to ensure speedy and effective dismissal of cases and share the workload with normal court rooms. According to the rules, legal aid is available for most kind of claims except the ones that fall under the ambit of Employment Tribunal. For example, Rachel may get legal aid for her defence based sexual harassment or unfair treatment at work only if the claim by James and Co has been constituted in normal court procedure and not the Employment Tribunal. In a scenario where Rachel is unable to get legal aid and her case is dealt with by the normal court procedure Rachel could use her legal-expenses insurance to fund her case, or go to a law centre and get free advice and represent her case herself in the Employment Tribunal. Or she could get a loan from her bank and pay her legal expenses. Lastly, another possibility could be that she consults the trade union, if she’s a part of any, and pleads her claim on the basis of employee welfare and get the Union’s help. This would benefit her cause as well and will probably get her justice. However, should James and Co win Rachel could ask the court for dual-liability where the damages could be shared between Fiona’s company and Rachel. Read More