This post is nothing much, it just so happens that my storeroom got attacked by an army of white ants.. so after the exterminator sprayed some chemicals a week ago, it was time to clean up and survey the damage..
Before I left for the UK 2 years ago.. (OMG it's already 2 years???!!) I had packed all my belongings.. well, almost all, into boxes and had them stored away.. Well even if I wasn't leaving, I would have still packed them away, as they take up space in my room.. And one find day, when I'm all old and withered, take them out like an archaeologist would.. but I digress...
(I think this was a blessing in disguise.. It's really all rubbish.. honestly, nothing but rubbish..it's just kept for what?? sentimental value.. then it takes up place.. and I use it for nothing.. absolutely nothing.. it's total rubbish...nothing but sentimental rubbish... )
My father was the archaeologist this time.. And asked me to sort out the box with my stuff... I guess among all my boxes.. that one, got rampaged really bad by the termites...
So after class.. although I was tired.. after having a little high tea with my mom.. skimmed the MSM.. I set to work...
Sorting through my old magazines... Which I've decided to donate to some orphanage or something, after tearing out the sections of the magazines, which was the Main purpose why I even bothered buy that magazine.... There was a comic called Helios Eclipse, that I was following till I left for the UK, the drawing, isn't really to my liking, but you get used to it, it's the storyline that I like :p
Anyway.. Under that mountain of magazines.. I found things from when I attended a leadership camp --> JUST 4th Young Leadership Programme and also my mooting stuff... the bundle of authorities couldn't be saved.. but heck.. it's just cases you can get off lexis nexis...
So before I really throw all of these stuff out.. I'm making and archive for myself.... on line... a paperless world.. where it will survive till the day blogspot terminates my account or gets terminated, whichever comes first.. so here is the first instalment of old rubbish I dug out, which I don't have much of a heart to throw away, and therefore decided to archive before throwing out.. (well it's the best compromise I could come up with..and the least space consuming...)
*******************************************************************
For those who have no idea what the hell is mooting... go here -- and -- here.. This is the case we mooted on, and the list of cases we used in our bundle of authorities... I recall the mooting committee getting this off from a mooting site...
But in case some of you are interested (I know, I know, it's 2 years late) on the case that I mooted on in my 2nd year of law.. and won... though personally, it felt like it was a given that My side would win, based on the case facts, it felt kind of unfair for the other party, but I guess I was just lucky...
I was acting on behalf of the respondent actually, which means that I was acting for Neville the poor injured fella...
By the way, this is a tort case, based on Vicarious Liability (Meaning the liability of the employers over the actions of their employees.)
*****
In the Court of Appeal Civil Division
Neville
-v-
Trafford Plc
Trafford Plc is a large UK based Multi-national company engaged in the. It occupies a factory site in Wales. The company has won many awards for the care it takes on training staff to handle such chemicals. Anxious not to lose valuable expertise, it offers retired ex-employees the opportunity to return on a part-time basis to help with training new staff. The ex-employees are allowed to retain their protective clothing for a small fee and their names are kept by the company on a register of those willing to help.
In December 1999, Trafford Plc was faced with a severe shortage of workers due to holidays and a flu epidemic. Concerned about the safety implications of being short staffed and reluctant to close the plant and lay off workers just before Christmas, the company took the following steps:
Letters were sent to all retired staff living within 50 miles of the factory asking them to work part-time over the Christmas holiday period. The staff were to a sign a fixed-term agreement under which they are designated "part-time labour only contractors" and are paid a lump sum based on hours worked plus a £500 Christmas bonus. They were under no compulsion to work any set hours but would be called ins as and when required. 10 ex-employees, including Messrs Keane and Scholes agreed to resume work on these terms.
The following events occur when the new staff begin work:
Ferguson, Trafford Plc's on site manager, after checking the work records of all the new employees requires Keane & Scholes to form a work details and fill a vat wit the nitrogen compounds, which form the basis of fertilisers. Ferguson tells the workers to use the small loading crane rather than the large crane because although the job will take longer, the small crane is more manoeuvrable in the small space and there is less likelyhood of accidents. After Ferguson departs, Keane who has 20 years of experience working for Trafford insists on using the large crane. In the process of loading the vat, the crane, due to the negligence of the crane driver and the other worker who was directing its operation, hits the side of the vat causing a spartk that ignites the mixture. The workers were unscathed but and office worker, Neville, was seriously injured by flying debris.
Neville took action against Trafford Plc. At the trails Beckham J held in awarding damages to Neville that:
Guideline for writing up submissions
Lead Appellant
May it please Your Lordship, my name is *** I appear in this case with my learned friend *** for the Appellant and my learned friends *** and *** appear for the Respondent.
Junior Appellant
May it please Your Lordship, as has already been indicated, my name is ***, and I appear for the appellant on the second ground of appeal.
-v-
Trafford Plc
Trafford Plc is a large UK based Multi-national company engaged in the. It occupies a factory site in Wales. The company has won many awards for the care it takes on training staff to handle such chemicals. Anxious not to lose valuable expertise, it offers retired ex-employees the opportunity to return on a part-time basis to help with training new staff. The ex-employees are allowed to retain their protective clothing for a small fee and their names are kept by the company on a register of those willing to help.
In December 1999, Trafford Plc was faced with a severe shortage of workers due to holidays and a flu epidemic. Concerned about the safety implications of being short staffed and reluctant to close the plant and lay off workers just before Christmas, the company took the following steps:
Letters were sent to all retired staff living within 50 miles of the factory asking them to work part-time over the Christmas holiday period. The staff were to a sign a fixed-term agreement under which they are designated "part-time labour only contractors" and are paid a lump sum based on hours worked plus a £500 Christmas bonus. They were under no compulsion to work any set hours but would be called ins as and when required. 10 ex-employees, including Messrs Keane and Scholes agreed to resume work on these terms.
The following events occur when the new staff begin work:
Ferguson, Trafford Plc's on site manager, after checking the work records of all the new employees requires Keane & Scholes to form a work details and fill a vat wit the nitrogen compounds, which form the basis of fertilisers. Ferguson tells the workers to use the small loading crane rather than the large crane because although the job will take longer, the small crane is more manoeuvrable in the small space and there is less likelyhood of accidents. After Ferguson departs, Keane who has 20 years of experience working for Trafford insists on using the large crane. In the process of loading the vat, the crane, due to the negligence of the crane driver and the other worker who was directing its operation, hits the side of the vat causing a spartk that ignites the mixture. The workers were unscathed but and office worker, Neville, was seriously injured by flying debris.
Neville took action against Trafford Plc. At the trails Beckham J held in awarding damages to Neville that:
- Keane & Scholes were employees of Trafford and thus Trafford could be vicariously liable for their actions.
- In disobeying Ferguson's direct instructions Keane & Scholes were not acting on a folly of their own and were sitll acting in the course of their employment.
- Keane & Scholes were not employees of Trafford Plc but independent contractors. As Such Trafford Plc could not be held vicariously liable for their actions.
- In disobeying Ferguson's direct instructions Keane and Scholes put themselves outside the course of their employment thus Trafford could not be liable for their actions..
Guideline for writing up submissions
Lead Appellant
May it please Your Lordship, my name is *** I appear in this case with my learned friend *** for the Appellant and my learned friends *** and *** appear for the Respondent.
Junior Appellant
May it please Your Lordship, as has already been indicated, my name is ***, and I appear for the appellant on the second ground of appeal.
- My Lord, in the instant case, there are two grounds of appeal. First, the issue whether *** and secondly, the issue whether ***.
- "IS Your Lordship familiar with the facts of the case?" or "Would Your Lordship be reminded of the facts?" or "Would a brief summary of the facts be helpful, my Lord?"
- The facts of the case are as follows xxx of the facts of the case are most relevant..
- If you do not wish to rely upon a case appearing in your list of authorities, it is best ot put the omission in a positive light. Inform the judge you cited the case merely to reinforce your main point, and that you are confident your submissions are strong enough without it.
- In support of this submission, I would refer your Lordship to the case of Carlill and The Carbolic Smokeball Company, reported in the first volume of the Law Reports, Queen's Bench Division, per 1893, page 256
- It is my submission that ***/ I submit that ***/ In my respectful submission ***
- In conclusion, I would invited your Lordship *** and to hold that *** and accordingly reverse the decision of *** and to allow this appeal
- "Unless I can assist the court further, that concludes my submissions on this ground of appeal" or "Unless your Lordship has any further questions, that concludes my submissions on this ground of appeal" or "Unless I can assist the court any further, I rest my case"
Lead Respondent
- If it pleases your Lordship, my name is *** and I represent the Respondent together with my learned junior ***.
- May it please your Lordship, as has already been indicated by my learned friend, ***, my name is *** and I appear for the Respondent on the second ground of appeal.
- It is my submission that the facts of tha tcase bear a remarkable resemblance to the case before your Lordship today.
- Might I seek to persuade your Lordship further by referring to the actual....
Cases used by the Appellant, who was Michelle (Sok Yen, because I know 3 Michelles), and Ashley ...
- Ready Mixed South East Ltd v Ministed of Pensions (1968) 2 QB 497
- WHPT Housing Association Ltd v Secretary of State for Social Services (1981) ICR737
- Carmichael & Anor v National Power Plc (1999) 1 WLR 2024
- Stevenson Jordan & Harrison v McDonnell & Evans (1952) 1 TLR 101
- Lister Ltd v Hesley Hall Ltd (2002) 1 AC 215
- Beard v London General Omnibus Company (1990) 2 QB 530
- Hilton v Thomas Burton (RHODES) Ltd & Anor (1961) 1 WLR 705
- Heasmans v Clarity Cleaning Company (1987) ICR 949
Cases used by the Respondent, which was Melissa and Me
- Short v JMV Henderson Ltd (1946) 62 TLR 427
- Humberstone v Northern Timber Mills (1949) 79 CLR
- Roe v Ministry of Healthy (1954) 2 QB 66
- Mat Jusoh bin Daud v Syarikat Jaya Seberang Takkir Sdn Bhd (1982) 2 MLJ 71
- Bayley v Manchester sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Company [1873] LR 3
- Century Insurance Company v Northern Road Transport Board [1942] AC 509
- Smith v Stages & Anor 1 [1989] ELR 833
- Limpus v London General Omnibus Company [1862] ELR 993
- Rose v Plenty [1976] WLR 141
And well as stated, the respondent won the case... I rest my case..
-Oracl3-
Labels: Achievement, Education, Law
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home