Issues in legal education
The first set of parallel sessions in the third Legal Education Symposium covered a wide range of fascinating topics, including experiential learning, assessment, and interdisciplinary law degrees. …
Author: Eoin
Dr Eoin O'Dell is a Fellow and Associate Professor of Law at Trinity College Dublin.
Teaching experiences in legal education
The theme of the morning plenary session of the third Legal Education Symposium was
Teaching experiences in legal education
It was chaired by UCD School of Law’s new Dean, Prof John Jackson, and the session examined the various ways in which the traditional legal curriculum could develop, including the integration of clinical education and interdisciplinary perspectives. …
Third Legal Education Symposium, UCD
Following the first symposium in Trinity College Dublin and the second in University College Cork, third Legal Research Symposium is ongoing today, hosted by University College Dublin‘s School of Law in the Quinn School of Business (pictured left). The theme for this year’s symposium is Legal Education in Context and In Practice. Organised this year by Prof Blanaid Clarke and Dr Marie-Luce Paris-Dobozy, this year’s symposium is sponsored by UCD’s Law School, whose generosity is all the greater in these more straitened financial climes.
Irish legal education faces many challenges, some shared with the rest of the university sector (the impending re-introduction of fees, government policy favouring ever greater co-operation (integration?) by universities especially at the graduate level, all in a difficult financial climate), some specific to Law Schools (the peculiar problems faced by academic law schools faced with professional obligations, whilst seeking to facilitate international research in a small jurisdiction). This symposium is a significant annual contribution to these important ongoing debates.…
Covert surveillance, privilege, and iniquity
- Caption: Hey boss. I’m not sure our covert surveillance is real covert any more
In general, the public interest in the proper administration of justice requires that people called as witnesses before courts must answer all questions put to them, on pain of being held in contempt of court. However, the common law has recognised some exceptions, such as the privilege of the police to be able to refuse to identify their sources, or that of lawyers or doctors to refuse to answer questions about conversations with clients. In such cases, there is a countervailing public interest in favour of encouraging full disclosure between the parties to the relationship. The categories of relationship which attract such privilege are controversial; it has been claimed to cover the relationship between journalists and their sources, or that between priests and their penitents – some jurisdictions recognise these extensions, some don’t (in Ireland – exceptionally in both cases – the former is an open question, and the latter is recognised).
In the way of these things, I have come across two interesting contributions to the deabte about the nature of such evidential privileges. In the first, In re McE [2009] UKHL 15 (11 March 2009) (also here) the House of Lords (Lord Hope, Baroness Hale, Lord Carswell and Lord Neuberger for the majority; Lord Phillips dissenting) held that that the the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) allows for covert surveillance of communications between lawyers and their clients, even where these are covered by legal professional privilege.…
Rescue from the runaway truck
Suppose you see a runaway truck, and seek to stop its progress before it does real damage – what legal claims arise? In an earlier post, I referred to two of the possible claims: first, if you stop it from injuring others, but are yourself injured in the process, you can sue the tortfeasor who released the truck in the first place. Second, if you are negligent in the process, you might yourself be liable in negligence to anyone you injure. But there is a third; if your rescue confers a benefit upon someone, such as the owner of the truck, then you might have an action in restitution for unjust enrichment against the owner of the truck.
This all sounds like a classic exam question, but it has recently happened. Yesterday’s Times has an interesting story raising all of these issues:
…Robert Moore snubbed by Royal Mail after he stopped runaway post van
The Royal Mail is being accused of ingratitude after criticising a man who stopped a 2-tonne runaway post van from careering over a busy main road. Robert Moore, 63, an artist, cracked a rib and injured a knee as he tried to stop the Transit van rolling down a hill when the driver forgot to apply the handbrake.
Services and overpayments
The English Court of Appeal recently considered two interesting issues in Furmans Electrical Contractors v Elecref Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 170 (10 March 2009). Furmans were subcontractors installing electrical cabling on jobs on which Elecref were electrical contractors. In early September 2007, a dispute arose as to the basis on which Furmans were remunerated; in particular, Elecref claimed that they had been overcharged. In early October, Elecref made one further payment on foot of an invoice from Furmans, but thereafter declined to make any further payments on foot of invoices covering various periods from August to October. Furmans sued to recover those amounts, and Elecref counterclaimed for the overpayments.
Waller LJ (Arden and Moore-Bick LJJ concurring) effectively allowed Furmans’ claim but dismissed Elecref’s counterclaim, and in doing so made two interesting comments. …
Article 10 and the Duke of Brunswick
William VIII, Duke of Brunswick (pictured left; 1806-1884) was ruling duke of the Duchy of Brunswick from 1830 until his death. A famous eccentric, he bequeathed at least two interesting events to history. First, he lost a famous chess game to Paul Morphy (the Bobby Fischer of his era). Second, he won an infamous libel appeal which now governs internet publication at English and Irish law.
The rule in Duke of Brunswick v Harmer (1849) 14 QB 185 is that each individual publication of a libel gives rise to a separate cause of action, subject to its own limitation period; it has been followed at the highest levels (Berezovsky v Michaels [2000] UKHL 25 (11 May 2000); Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575, [2002] HCA 56 (10 December 2002)) and in the online context (Godfrey v Demon Internet Ltd [2001] QB 201, [1999] EWHC QB 244 (26 March 1999); Dow Jones v Gutnick again). US law is different: a defamatory publication gives rise to a single cause of action for libel, which accrues at the time of the original publication, and that the statute of limitations runs from that date (see, eg, Gregoire v GP Putnam’s Sons 81 NE 2d 45 (1948)).…
Education and training
The National Competitiveness Council yesterday published a Statement on Education and Training; from the announcement on the website:
Education is central to our ability to improve our quality of life and wellbeing through success in selling goods and services on international markets. The quality of education outcomes is central to national competitiveness. Ireland’s education system has been a key contributor to economic growth and improvements in living standards in recent years. We need to have one of the best education and research systems in the world to drive economic recovery. This Statement on Education and Training outlines priority recommendations to enhance Ireland’s education and training system.
Read more here.…
© cearta.ie 2025. Powered by WordPress