This Next week, there are not one but two sessions in the Dublin Legal Workshop series.

First up: the evening stream of the Dublin Legal Workshop is meant largely as a forum for external speakers to share ideas in Trinity. In this stream, at update: 6.30pm (and not 6.00pm as earlier announced) next Tuesday evening, 3 April 2007, in Room 11 of the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin (map here), Andrea Martin, solicitor and media law specialist (who has already featured on this blog), will give a talk entitled:

“Right of Reply – a Workable Proposition for the Media?â€?

Second: the afternoon stream of the Dublin Legal Workshop is meant largely as a forum for work in progress by the postgraduate research students and academic staff of the School of Law, Trinity College Dublin. In this stream, at 1.00pm next Wednesday afternoon, 4 April 2007, in the Law School’s library, Des Ryan, a research student, tutor, and part-time lecturer in the Law School (pictured left), will present a paper entitled:

“Tort Law, Public Authorities, Rights and Wrongs�.

If you are interested, please do come along. They should each be enjoyable and informative presentations.

All families are happy in the same fashion,
and each family is unhappy in its own way.

Count Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910)
in Anna Karenina (1875-1877)

Banks lend money; but they are averse to the risks of this lending, so they usually require security for the money they lend. One form of security is to get another, creditworthy, person to agree to pay the loan if the borrower fails to do so. This arrangement is called a suretyship, and the person who undertakes to pay if the borrower does not is called a surety.

Do sureties need protection from the borrowers or lenders? For example, if a husband and wife have interests in the family home, and the wife agrees to secure a loan to her husband against her interest in the family home, does a vulnerable wife need protection either from an overbearing husband or an unscrupulous bank here? Read the rest of this entry »

I have recently commented on this blog that the right to freedom of expression Article 40.6.1(i) has finally got some teeth!?. That process continued today in the Supreme Court, where Fennelly J uttered the line used as the title to this post. Read the rest of this entry »

This is a call to arms; or at least, a call for legislation which would radically recast EU copyright law.

Intellectual property law and policy are all about innovation, both encouraging it and protecting its fruits. But these are potentially opposing, perhaps even incompatible, goals: if we reward one innovator with a monopoly over the fruits of the innovation, prohibiting others’ use of those fruits, then we risk preventing the next round of innovation. The challenge to law-makers is to strike the an appropriate balance between reward and innovation, by pitching the length of the monopoly at the right level, both in the breadth of its coverage and the length of its term, beyond which others might also use it.

The story of copyright provides a good example of this dilemma. Read the rest of this entry »

A payment made on a basis which fails can be recovered. So, if I pay for cigarettes, and the price includes an amount for a tax which is subsequently found unconstitutional, the basis for that excess amount has failed, and I can recover the tax amount that wasn’t due (see Roxborough v Rothmans of Pall Mall Australia Limited (2001) 208 CLR 516; [2001] HCA 68 (6 December 2001)). It follows that if I book to travel with an airline, and pay their fee plus taxes and charges, but if I then don’t travel, so that the charges are not incurred and the taxes are not due, the basis for those taxes and charges has failed, and I ought to be able to recover them. If the contract between me and the airline contains clauses making them irrecoverable, (or, what amounts to the same thing, imposing disproportionately high administration fees) such clauses are almost certainly unenforceable (on foot of the European Communities (Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts) Regulations, 1995 (S.I. No. 27 of 1995), the English equivalent of which have recently been applied by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) against an airline’s terms and conditions).

These musings are prompted by the following story in the Price Watch column in today’s Irish Times (sub req’d):

No guaranteed refund if you don’t take your Ryanair flight
Read the rest of this entry »

Last night, MGM movies showed the 1984 movie Teachers, about a lawyer who sued her high school for graduating an illiterate pupil. It starred JoBeth Williams as the lawyer; Nick Nolte as the idealistic but frustrated and jaded ageing hippie teacher; and Judd Hirsch as the pragmatic head teacher just trying to get through with the pupils he’s got (for a more recent, also iconic, role, see here (Daithí)). A fine supporting cast included Ralph Macchio (’wax on, wax off‘) as the tough kid Nolte was trying to reach; Laura Dern as the kid Nolte helps to have an abortion after another teacher gets her pregnant; and Morgan Freeman (with an extraordinary hairstyle almost as much a member of the cast in its own right as Kevin Costner’s in Robin Hood. Prince of Thieves) as the school’s lawyer. There is a perceptive review here. Among the many Hollywood-sardonicisms in the script, the large, underfunded high school is named for John F Kennedy; and the illiterate graduate (whom we never meet) is called John Calvin(!). The case settled (JoBeth Williams’ boss, William Hill (in the key scene, he is world-weary, wearing a waistcoat, and sitting behind a desk – for all the world as he would appear in TV’s Law & Order) did the deal, much against her wishes). When the school board tried to fire Nolte for his role in Dern’s abortion, he uttered the line in the title; and a Dead Poet’s Society-style show of support from his pupils emboldened him to resist the school’s efforts to sack him.

Its themes have since become a little clichéd (not least its tagline: “They fall asleep in class. Throw ink on each other. Never come in Mondays. And they’re just the teachers”). Read the rest of this entry »

Breithlá shona don Aontas Eorpach! Tá a lán ar siúl in Éireann mar cheiliúradh ar an breithlá.

Filibuster: (noun) an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures.

The word originates in words of piracy, such as the French ‘flibustier’, the Spanish ‘filibustero’ and the Dutch ‘vrijbuiter’, all etymologically equivalent to ‘freebooter’. The 1939 movie ‘Mr. Smith Goes to Washington‘, directed by Frank Capra (nominated for two oscars for this movie), stars Jimmy Stewart, in his patented role of a young naif, this time oscar-nominated as a newly elected Junior Senator Jefferson Smith. The climax of the movie is a filibuster staged by Mr Smith in the Senate so that there would be enough time to expose the corruption of his mentor, Senator Joseph Harrison Paine, played by the also oscar-nominated Claude Rains.

I have already commented on the slow progress of the Defamation Bill, 2006 (Department of Justice | Oireachtas (pdf)) and the number of red herrings in the debate, and concluded that it had become increasinlgy unlikely that the Bill would be enacted before the election. Now, from yesterday’s Order of Business in the Seanad (html | pdf to follow | Irish Times report (sub req’d)), a cynical explanation: a filibuster! Read the rest of this entry »