Cearta.ie – Page 94 – the Irish for rights

Advertising politics; political advertising

Posted on 22 October, 201022 October, 2010 by Eoin

It is a bad advert for Irish politics that RTÉ (Ireland’s national public broadcaster) has had to decline to broadcast a radio advertisement for the short film Defend The Pension from the Older & Bolder campaign (above, via Vimeo; see also here, via YouTube). Older & Bolder is an alliance of non-governmental organisations that champions the rights of all older people, and seeks to combat ageism. Defend The Pension is directed by award-winning director Ken Wardrop, who directed the wonderful His & Hers; and it shows a number of old age pensioners standing in the pouring rain explaining why the State pension is important to them and should not be cut.

Section 41(3) of the Broadcasting Act, 2009 (also here) provides

A broadcaster shall not broadcast an advertisement which is directed towards a political end …

According to today’s Irish Times, Peter Feeney, Head of Broadcast Compliance at RTÉ, said that this section forbids all broadcasters from carrying advertisements towards political ends, and that RTÉ has no discretion in this matter. He also said that RTÉ’s copy clearance committee decided the advertisement breached the Act because it directed listeners to a video and website that sought to influence the Government in the formation of December’s budget.…

The role of new media in humanities scholarship

Posted on 20 October, 2010 by Eoin

One of my favourite reads online is the journal First Monday, one of the first openly accessible, peer–reviewed journals on the Internet, solely devoted to the Internet. The name of the journal was chosen, First Monday, based on its frequency, as issues appear on the first Monday of every month. In this month’s issue (Volume 15, Number 10 – 4 October 2010), there is an excellent article on the new media in the humanities by Oya Y Rieger:

Framing digital humanities: The role of new media in humanities scholarship

The phrase “digital humanities” refers to a range of new media applications that converge at the intersection of technology and humanities scholarship. It is an evolving notion and conveys the role of information technologies in humanities scholarship. Based on a qualitative case study approach, this paper interprets the concept by eliciting the diverse perspectives — which nevertheless express several discernible themes — of a group of humanities scholars. It synthesizes the wide range of opinions and assumptions about information and communication technologies (ICTs) held by these humanists by using Bijker’s (1995) notion of a technological frame. The digital humanities domain is interpreted through three lenses: digital media as facilitator of scholarly communication; digital media as a platform for creative expression and artistic endeavors; and, digital media as context for critical studies of digital culture.

…

Subrogation, shipping, and unjust enrichment

Posted on 18 October, 201022 July, 2023 by Eoin

In an earlier post, I discussed the subrogation claim in Bell Lines v Waterford Multiport Ltd [2006] IEHC 188 (28 April 2006) (Dunne J) rvsd [2010] IESC 15 (18 March 2010). My basic point was that subrogation arises for all sorts of reasons. As Lord Diplock put it in Orakpo v Manson Investments [1978] AC 95, followed in this respect by Neuberger LJ in Cheltenham & Gloucester Plc v Appleyard [2004] EWCA Civ 291 (15 March 2004) [32], it “embraces more than a single concept”. Apart from the insurance context where it is largely a matter of contract, several reasons have been proferred to explain when subrogation arises by operation of law.

For example, (i) it can reverse unjust enrichment; (ii) it arises on “well settled established principles and in defined circumstances”; (iii) it will be applied when “reason and justice” demand that it should be; (iv) it reflects the presumed or actual intention of the parties; and (v) it is all simply a matter of discretion. It is unlikely that a single over over-arching theory will explain the whole field. Instead, subrogation is a rather protean doctrine, founded upon many different principles. As a consequence, it is likely that unjust enrichment is simply the theoretical foundation of one facet of the doctrine of subrogation rather than for the whole ambit of the doctrine.…

Justice is open again

Posted on 17 October, 20103 May, 2012 by Eoin

The photo on the left – ‘Access Denied’ by Simon McGarr – shows the main door of the Four Courts in Dublin, with a sandwich board outside announcing

This entrance is now closed. Please use Morgan Place entrance.

Leaving aside jokes about open justice and access to the courts, I was delighted to note during the week that the board is now gone. According to the Courts Service website:

Four Courts main doors re-opened to the public

The public can once again access the Four Courts via the main entrance on Inns Quay.

The reduced numbers using the Four Courts following the transfer of criminal business to the new Criminal Courts of Justice has made it possible to install a security system at the historic entrance and allow for access by the public.

Brendan Ryan CEO of the Courts Service said that “the main doors once again open for daily business is highly symbolic of the courts being held in public. We are delighted to be in a position to facilitate this and still maintain security and safety for all court users”.

…

Making the grade

Posted on 16 October, 201031 January, 2013 by Eoin

Via the incomparable 9th level Ireland blog, I (rather belatedly) learn that Andrew Croskery, a graduate of Queen’s University Belfast who has taken judicial review proceedings to challenge his degree results (on which I have previously blogged: 1, 2, 3, 4; and there is also an excellent post Jason Smith), might have got a result during the week. According to the BBC, QUB has agreed to review his grade. It seems that he was only 0.5% off obtaining a 2:1 in his degree, and in his judicial review proceedings, he claimed that if he had received better supervision he would have achieved that 2:1. On Tuesday, the High Court granted a three-week adjournment to allow QUB to review his degree classification on the alleged grounds of inadequate supervision and procedural irregularities. QUB told the Court that it made the proposal without prejudice in a bid to ease his concerns. Moreover, the Belfast Telegraph reported that if he is still unhappy with the outcome, he would now be able to appeal his results. As Education Law Blog points out

This appears to be a successful outcome for the student, as the provision of a review is about as much as he could have expected to achieve by way of his legal proceedings.

…

Legal Issues for the Third Level Sector

Posted on 15 October, 201017 October, 2010 by Eoin

I spent the morning at a seminar on Legal Issues for the Third Level Sector hosted by the Arthur Cox Technology & Intellectual Property Group. The morning was chaired by Rob Corbet.

First up were Claire McGrade and Karen Killoran discussing “The Arbitration Act 2010 and Other Forms of Alternative Dispute Resolution”. Claire discussed Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) in general, and Karen discussed the (also here). The second full paper was presented by Lisa Kinsella, on “Clinical Research at Third Level: Recent Developments in the Regulatory Framework”. And third was Tara MacMahon, who gave an update on the work implementing the recommendations of the Innovation Taskforce. …

Harry Potter and the Chancery Judge

Posted on 15 October, 201022 October, 2010 by Eoin

For those who have an interest in the copyright travails of Harry Potter, about which I have blogged previously (1 | 2 | 3), Jeremy Phillips has an interesting blogpost on The 1709 Blog:

Wizard gears up for ten-day tangle with boy magician

Word is now spreading about the news that Scottish author JK Rowling and Bloomsbury Publishing have failed in their bid to prevent an unwanted copyright infringement action getting to court. A a 10-day Chancery Division trial is now expected, following today’s ruling by Mr Justice Kitchin here that Paul Allen, the trustee of the estate of Willy the Wizard author Adrian Jacobs, has an arguable copyright infringement claim against the author and publisher of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

JK Rowling and Bloomsbury (her UK publisher) both deny all of the claims and argued that, since they were groundless, they should be dismissed summarily. However, after an interim hearing in July which lasted three days, Kitchin J has now concluded that the claim may succeed and would not therefore be dismissed at this early stage. … more here

The New York Times adds:

British Judge Refuses to Throw Out Suit Accusing Rowling of Plagiarism

J.

…

Academic judgment and breach of contract in Ontario

Posted on 14 October, 201017 September, 2020 by Eoin

Omar Ha-Redeye has blogged on Slaw about an Ontario CA decision that is very relevant to the judicial review proceedings being taken by Andrew Croskery to challenge his degree results in Queen’s University Belfast (on which I have previously blogged: 1, 2, 3). The gravamen of those posts was that courts are slow to disturb substantive academic decisions, though beyond that sphere, they will of course give effect to claims in tort or for breach of contract. This distinction is at the heart of the case at issue in Omar’s blogpost: Jaffer v York University 2010 ONCA 654 (7 October 2010).

In this case, the plaintiff challenged a decision to exclude him at the end of his first year because he had not maintained a sufficient grade average, on the grounds that the university had failed to make proper accommodation for his Trisomy 21 (Down’s Syndrome) and that he had detrimentally relied on an alleged promise by a professor to defer his status while the dispute over disability was resolved. His claim failed at first instance, in part on the ground that, “[w]hile there may be contractual or tortious issues within the broader claim, if the pith and substance of the impugned conduct is academic in nature, the action cannot be continued in the courts” ([24] Pitt J).…