Ireland’s leading celebrity academic blogger discusses a the theme of Laptops in class:

Laptop fever

… the laptop is now a common sight in the lecture theatre or classroom, with an increasing number of students bringing them along and using them visibly. … Generally I am a supporter of the use of technology where it assists, and I see no reason why this should not apply to the laptop. …

Anyway, I am now bringing my own laptop along to meetings. It’s useful, and great when things get boring.

Ah, boring meetings. That explains a lot. It must be when he gets the time to write his blog posts

Via Chris Slane’s wonderful Privacy Cartoon Portfolio, a poster for last month’s Privacy Awareness Week in New Zealand:

On the top right hand corner of a cover of Hot Press (pictured left) runs a quote from the Taoiseach (Prime Minister), Brian Cowen:

Those paintings didn’t bother me

It is a teaser for a full interview with Jason O’Toole in which Cowen talks about the current economic crisis and his party’s electoral prospects. This is what he said about those paintings:

Do you read any of the political blogs written about you and your government?
No, I don’t. I’ve been too busy trying to do my job.

Do you think the recent controversy over the painting was blown out of proportion?
I made no comment about it at the time. As far as I was concerned, it was obviously a stunt. I know some people thought it wasn’t in great taste, but I just stayed out of it. I have a thick enough political skin at this stage – formed over the 25 years I’ve been in this business – not to be bothered by something like that.

So, just what was all the fuss about?

Some time ago, in a similarly titled post, I discussed the establishment of a committee chaired by Ms Justice Susan Denham of the Supreme Court which was to consider the necessity for a possible new Court of Appeal. I thought it a good idea then, and still do now. According to Carol Coulter in today’s Irish Times, the Government has just received the committee’s report:

Logjam in Supreme Court appeals not serving justice

ANALYSIS: Too few judges hearing appeals and a recent proliferation of lay litigants means judgment delays of years, writes Carol Coulter

… the need for a Court of Civil Appeal to hear most appeals from the High Court, leaving the Supreme Court to deal with constitutional cases and those involving fundamental points of law, … arises from the increasing volume of cases going to the Supreme Court, resulting in lengthy delays. There can be up to three years’ delay in a case appealed from the High Court getting a hearing in the Supreme Court. Read the rest of this entry »

Charlie Webb poses the provocative question “What is Unjust Enrichment?” in the title of an important piece just published in (2009) 29 (2) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 215-243. His basic point is that whilst the existence of a law of Restitution concerned with reversing unjust enrichments is largely uncontroversial, the ability of unjust enrichment to account for all restitutionary claims is far less so, and he therefore addresses the question of what role a conception of unjust enrichment can and should play in presenting and justifying the modern law of Restitution. Moreover, an excellent Irish perspective on this question is provided by Laura Farrell “The Future of the Law of Restitution in Ireland – the Unjust Question” (2008) 15(10) Commercial Law Practitioner 239.

When I finished Webb’s piece, I went on to read some of the essays in The Fifth Remedies Discussion Forum published in 42 (1) Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review (2008) (currently here, but soon probably here), and whilst I was on the website, I took the opportunity to go back and look at the previous Remedies Forum also hosted by that Review. That earlier one was largely devoted to the Law of Restitution, and one of its themes was was that this subject should find a more prominent home in law school curricula, a sentiment with which I entirely agree. For example, Michael Kelly argued (pdf) that more of it should be taught in compulsory Contract Law courses; whilst David Partlett and Russell Weaver invoked Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings (books | movies) to suggest that the “ancient wisdom” of Restitution has been lost among US scholars and ought to be restored to its rightful place at the centre of legal learning.

However, the most entertaining piece in this vein is Elaine Shoben “Spinning Restitution: From Cauliflower to Coconut” 36 Loyola LA L Rev 1027 (2003) (pdf). Here’s the abstract:

Teaching restitution is a challenge at many levels, but the first problem is getting students to take the course. This Article presents a tongue-in-cheek method for advertising the subject to students in order to convince them of the value of learning restitution theory while still in school. It is a humorous commentary on the problem in legal education of making a dull and difficult subject like restitution appealing to modern students.

Her article begins:

Restitution needs some public relations work. The advent of the sexy class phenomenon in American law schools is bad news for a subject like Restitution. … How can Restitution … compete against more inviting courses like Sports Law … Law in the Age of Technology, and Law and Literature …[?]

This is entirely true, and the phenomenon is not limited to American law schools. With this competition, the problem is that

… students fill their plates too high with the palate-pleasers at the course buffet and they forget the vegetables—those courses that provide the basic fiber of the legal profession. Restitution, of course, is a vegetable. And a tough one at that. Rather like cauliflower.

Shoben hastens to reassure us that she likes cauliflower, and so do I, but then we both like Restitution as well. Indeed, Webb’s piece is probably a good example of the kind of important analysis that students find tough, like cauliflower. So Shoben identifies two ways to make the students more likely to eat their greens: advertise Restitution as the salvation of lawyers in a tough spot, much as the coconut is for the Tom Hanks character is the movie Cast Away, or present Restitution as fun and inherently zany because many of the famous cases in the subject involve bizarre and amusing fact situations. Now you know why cauliflowers and coconuts feature in the title of her piece, and if you want some more tangentially academic distraction relating to coconuts, then check this post out.

Anyway, as between the coconuts and the just plain nuts, Shoben plumps for the second approach, and presents some amusing strategies to bolster it. And this got me wondering: what are the fun and zany Restitution cases with bizarre and amusing fact situations from Ireland, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand? If you’re a Restitution lawyer reading this (and there must be some, surely? Steve? Eagle?), why not make a suggestion (or several) in the comments. According as cases occur to me, I’ll do the same. And pretty soon we may have some non-US cases to parallel Shoben’s US list on which we can rely in our sales pitch for new improved comic, wacky and entertaining Restitution courses.

In the meantime, Webb’s piece is very important in helping to understand the nature of the Restitution, whilst Shoben’s piece is it an enjoyable and engaging read for anyone who teaches the subject. They are both, in their different ways, essential reading.

A little while ago I mused that Irish universities seeking the freedom to set their own fees might decide to declare independence from government not just on fees but on all matters. But I thought then that it would never happen. However, the old adage “never say never” occurred to me this morning, reading the following story in THE [with added links]:

Privatise top 5 and let us form UK Ivy League says Imperial rector

The rector of Imperial College London wants the institution to go private and join four other Russell Group universities in an independent US-style Ivy League. Professor Sir Roy Anderson told the Evening Standard that privatisation would allow Imperial, the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the London School of Economics and University College London to fulfil their economic promise.

“If you take the top five universities, they have enormous potential to earn income for Britain. How best to do that? My own view would be to privatise them,” he told the paper. “The trouble is all British universities are too dependent on Government. You don’t want to be subject to the mores of government funding or changing educational structures.”

Privatisation would allow Imperial and the other four “elite” institutions to set their own unlimited tuition fees and take more overseas students, he said. …

More here, here and here.

So, what would be shorthand for the this elite top 5? “The Premiership” seems currently in vogue. Or what about “The Famous Five”? Should (some of?) the Irish universities go the same way? And if so, what should be the shorthand for them? “The Shamrock League”? Or perhaps auction the naming rights? More seriously, even though the proposal is cast in current jargon, there may be something to it. It is certainly an important suggestion; and Sir Roy is to be commended for beginning the debate, even if the proposal is at present an unpopular one.

From Michael Lines on Slaw:

Freedom of information: a comparative legal survey

UNESCO and its Communication and Information Sector have just released a new edition of Freedom of information: a comparative legal survey, and it is free online.

The survey was prepared by Toby Mendel, Law Programme Director with Article XIX. From the survey’s homepage:

The importance of the right to information or the right to know is an increasingly constant refrain in the mouths of development practitioners, civil society, academics, the media and governments.

What is this right, is it really a right and how have governments sought to give effect to it? These are some of the questions this book seeks to address, providing an accessible account of the law and practice regarding freedom of information, and an analysis of what is working and why.

The analysis in the book is organised around a number of key features of an effective Freedom of Information regime:

1. MAXIMUM DISCLOSURE
   Freedom of information legislation should by guided by the principle of maximum disclosure
2. OBLIGATION TO PUBLISH
   Public bodies should be under an obligation to publish key Information
3. PROMOTION OF OPEN GOVERNMENT
   Public bodies must actively promote open government
4. LIMITED SCOPE OF EXCEPTIONS
   Exceptions should be clearly and narrowly drawn and subject to strict “harm” and “public interest” tests
5. PROCESSES TO FACILITATE ACCESS
   Requests for information should be processed rapidly and fairly and an independent review of any refusals should be available
6. COSTS
   Individuals should not be deterred from making requests for information by excessive costs
7. OPEN MEETINGS
   Meetings of public bodies should be open to the public
8. DISCLOSURE TAKES PRECEDENCE
   Laws which are inconsistent with the principle of maximum disclosure should be amended or repealed
9. PROTECTION FOR WHISTLEBLOWERS
   Individuals who release information on wrongdoing – whistleblowers – must be protected

Ireland is not one of the countries assessed in this report, but since Elaine Byrne argued in yesterday’s Irish Times that legislation is need to protect whistleblowers, I am not sanguine that the Irish legislation (1997 as amended in 2003) would measure up well against these principles.

If you have ever wondered

is there any thing more boring than drafting a contract?

then Ken Adams (pictured right, author of the invaluable Manual of Style for Contract Drafting and of one of my favourite blogs) has (necessary? welcome?) reassurance.