Issues on the Law Case Analysis - Essay Example

? Law Case Analysis The hearing of the dispute can be done by a Supreme Court where in the UK may be the House of Commons. The dispute can be taken into consideration using the principle of forum non conveniens which implies that the court has a forum that is in practice, and the jurisdiction of the forum is competent. Thus in the case in question, the common law is taken into consideration. In some nations, the dispute may fall under the federal doctrine while in the United Kingdom; there is use of the U.K law to solve the dispute. This is especially when a member of the public is part of the dispute as seen in the case of Spiliada Maritime V Cansulex. The House of Commons can implement the judgement at its level. Considering the case of Spiliada Maritime V. Cansulex, the house of commons did not fully give a satisfaction to the defendant thus the defendant went ahead and made an appeal given by Lord Goff where He made a ruling that, there was enough natural form including applicable law relating to the matter, availability of witnesses, presence of the residence of the two parties and that the plaintiff had a possibility of obtaining foreign jurisdiction. Thus, there was making of a judgement by the Supreme Court. In this case, there is a judgement considering that there is no other jurisdiction that suits the requirements of the parties. The procedure the court follows includes; granting the basic principle when there is enough satisfaction by the court that there is another forum that can settle the dispute forum of the parties thus applying more suitably to the satisfaction of the parties. The court then determines the legal burden of proof which shows enough evidence. The Supreme Court then determines who lies with the burden depending on the existence of a natural or a forum which is appropriate. After this, the court finds the factors that show there is the existence of another forum which entails the presence of enough witnesses as well as the law that will be under administration in settling the dispute. At this moment, the court will get to a conclusion as to whether another forum is available. If there is another forum, the court then grants a stay considering the circumstances surrounding the dispute as seen in the ruling of Lord Goff1. Factors that the court takes into consideration and illustrative cases In relation to the forum non conveniens, its appropriateness is brought to question and also the applicability of the principle of forum non conveniens. This relates to cost, the outcome as well as the delays in the implementation of the principle. The principle finds its application in international law especially in the private section. Its long process of implementation makes the principle to be in use in the domestic system, which involves cases where the judicial structure does not have a structure that has unification and where the judicial system is federal. The uncertainty of the outcome is due to the expansions in the level of jurisdiction in the legislation where plaintiffs can file a suit at their residential places. According to the code of civil procedure, there should be the filling of suits in the residential place of the defendant rather than that of the plaintiff. There are many details in this system due to the fact that the defendant will not accept the filling of the suit to take place at the residence of the plaintiff; this is because it may be taken as a weapon of harassment forcing the defendant to go to the residence of the plaintiff which may be far. Further, many past judgements have taken effect thus the court may have a challenge in deciding which is the best channel to solve the dispute amicably thus leading to delays. There are enormous costs from the implementation of this principle where, the defendant and the plaintiff may face off due to the fact that they have the right for the cases to be heard at the place due to the cost as well as moving there witnesses to the residence of either party. There is a lengthy process to get a clear verdict this leads to uncertainty of the outcome of the dispute. As seen in the case of Kusum Ingots v. India union. The cost of running the case may spill to the judges who also have to travel to the residence of the plaintiff to witness the filling of the suit. The defendant or the plaintiff may cause delays because the filling of the suit is at their residence. This is to slow the case where the court cannot force them to file the suits as seen in the case of Winterbottom v. Wright which also follows the ruling made by Lord Goff in that there was a place of residence of the plaintiff where there was contraction of Wright was on contract for maintenance of coaches while Winterbottom was the driver. Due to failure and injury Winterbottom made a case against Wright because he was to maintain the coaches2. For the judges to form a verdict that does not favour any of the parties, the factors that they should take into consideration would include; Giving categories and issuing the priorities to the dispute so as not to favour the plaintiff nor the defendant, for example, the article of dispute often has a title that contains legality in accordance to the common law and also has an equitable title to the plaintiff or the defendant and these two parties of ownership rights may be held by different people3. In case the judges consider the laws of The United Kingdom, there is determination of whether the corresponding Amendment's right to a trial applies or whether the issue will follow a decision by the judge of the supreme law to avoid more disputes of interest. This is seen in the case of Statler v. Ray company, where Statler had injuries while working for the Company and thus from the U.K law, the company was liable to the injuries. The judges should also take into consideration the standard of review and degree of deference given by a tribunal that is under the establishment by the Supreme Court in the solution of the dispute. This also follows to the decision of the lower tribunal under review. Thus, the article that allows the Supreme Court to form a tribunal or a lower tribunal to foresee the case that includes, the filling of the case at the residence of the plaintiff or the defendant rather than at the court. This is to ensure that there is seriousness in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and to speed up the process of solving the dispute. Delegation of the process to a tribunal helps the Supreme Court to do with the backlog of cases. This is in the case of Spiliada Maritime V Cansulex, where the ruling was by Lord Goff where he made a statement that the suit was oppressive to either of the parties as well as abuse of power in the process thus giving an appeal would be necessary4. The remedies available and legal procedures in the application are crucial to ensure there is a right verdict concerning the dispute. The benefit of choosing the legal procedures that are available helps to speed up the process as well as reduce the cost of running the case. This is because the Supreme Court is not always in session, and considering the fact that the court has many cases to tackle. The English court can take jurisdiction by the process of Presence, the various torts and submission, and can take the summary of the following; The traditional common principles form its foundation under the non questionable system in England from the decisions that the judiciary made which form their bases on tradition, custom, and methods of precedent. Such forms of legal authorities and cultural behaviour are similar to those which were present in European countries and part of the surrounding, as well as other societies. Taking into consideration precedent and custom always have been playing a part in the legal process, including laws that were under the establishment in Germany as well as laws that take records in the Roman chronicles which are historical and repetitive. The form of reasoning in use in common law forms its case bases on the reasoning of the law makers of England at that time including Lord Goff who made the ruling to the case in question relating to a previous case of Baroda V. Wildenstein where the judge took into consideration the various torts relating to the culture of Baroda who was in dispute with Wilderstein5. The common law takes its application in civil cases rather than in criminal cases hence it is efficient to use it in the solution of the dispute under study. The setting of the law is in England as a means of making compensation to someone for acts that were wrong. Under the law, the wrong deeds that are not under criminal law, known as torts. The classification of torts entails torts that are intentional as well as torts that are as a result of negligence by the tort fessors. They are also crucial in developing the set of laws that take recognition and regulation of contracts as well as other form of civil deeds. The model that is in practice in common law courts entails the adversarial system. The development of this model has made an enormous development in the common law. Under common law, the presence of the actual tort or crime is essential and forms the bases for making the right decision concerning the dispute. There should be a relationship between what the plaintiff put down and what the actual crime. Under the common law, there are a series of procedures that the courts take into consideration, thus working out all the details, so that over the years to come, the law can change immensely but without an acute break, thereby reducing the chances of disruption of the case. A point to note, where a tort has roots in common law, there is consideration of all traditional damages for that tort, that is, whether there is mention of damages in the current common law or not. For instance, a person who sustains injuries through the negligence of another may sue for medical costs this is seen in the case of Motor Car v. Johnson where the judge made a ruling that the plaintiff could not get compensation for injuries due to a faulty wheel because the defendant had a contract from the dealer rather than from the manufacturer6. In relation to St. Pierre test of 1936, there was a powerful court which led to the invoking of tribunals where the court gets the persuasion that the forum that is in use is inappropriate. In the traditional common law, there was a clear inappropriateness in the forum that had its formation locally that the test led to its removal. In 1948, there is the application of the test where the court of appeals’ decision follows an overturn by the high court, where in case, the proceedings are to remain in the residence of the plaintiff rather than at the place of the defendant as was the request of the court of appeal. There was then the bringing in of the oppressive and vexatious plan by the high court rather than the forum which was appropriate as the court of appeal would have done. In the interpretation of statute, courts interpret statutes that create new causes of action closely and are in limitation to their precise terms. This is because the courts system recognizes the legislature as the most supreme body in deciding the reach of laws made by the judge unless such statute violates some second order of the provision held by the constitution. This helps speed up the process of reaching a decision that does not favour either of the parties rather it is constitutional7. In response to the relevant factors, there is consideration of the case of Connelly vs. RTZ Company of 1998, where Mr Connelly was in the mining of uranium in Africa for RTZ Company wholly, which took subsidiary ownership of Rossing Uranium Ltd. There was the development of cancer cell carcinoma, from ore dust due to the mining of uranium thus suing RTZ, on the allegations that it had a role to play in setting of the company’s health and safety facilities as it was a requirement, and therefore, there was a duty of care. RTZ had the argument that Mr Connelly should not sue the company on the bases but there was a limit to an action in the country where the mining was taking place. The case went to the House of Lords and Mr Connelly was successful in suing the Uranium Company8. Mr Connelly was following RTZ in the English High Court so as to get what he was asking for. There was a verdict against RTZ in that there was no duty of care that it had against Conelly, adding to that, the action was under time barring of the Limitation Act. Also, it was the country’s law that was under application under the Foreign Limitation Act of 1984. In relation to the Nile rhapsody, there was a collision between vessels while on bound the Nile. There was a previous application limiting the level of liability before the high Court that took into consideration the French laws. There were however, many claimants to this dispute. One person, with an English Jurisdiction contract took action regarding the case in England. In the prevailing conditions however, the action was to stay in France. Here, the person who was filling the suit made an appeal for a stay. There are delays considering the case of vish vs. Ajay of 1989. Through the case, there is the illustration of two fundamental principles that are not lawyers do not clearly understand most of the time during the solution of disputes especially by the Supreme Court. There is evolution of the law, where the evolution is due to the judges thus over years issues directions relating to witness protection, taken with serious consideration basing on the fact that most witnesses fear to give their confessions due to fear. Following this, there has reviewing of the law to make sure that there is proper protection of witnesses. In application to applicable law, the factors surrounding the decision made by the judges are highly crucial in the long run than the verdict in a specific case. Thus, the judicial opinions are usually long but efficient, and give procedures and policies that have balance with judgment in future cases, which do not require the interpretation of the statute. The ruling was in accordance to a previous case of Club Mediterranee NZ v Wendell where the ship of Wendel had gone down due to engine failure thus Club Mediterranee which was the owner of the ship had to pay the plaintiff for the inconveniences9. The meaning of minimum of justice means the lowest level at which the Supreme Court can extend in the delegation of its jurisdiction. This includes the formation of the tribunal to solve a certain dispute. It may take the level of juvenile to ensure the development of a case. Bibliography Millett, R. A. (2010). In many a strife. Bristol, England : Ashgate Press. Millett, R. A. and Maslowski, P. (2012). For the Commons Defence. London, England: Free Press. Reed, A. (2008). The American political system and civilian control of the military: a historical perspective. Hereford . Sweet & Maxwell press. Reed, A. (2009). Criminal Law. Liverpool: Sweet & Maxwell press. Reed, A. (2011). Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility. Plymouth : Naval institute press. Table of cases and statute Thomas v. Winchester vish vs. Ajay Cadillac Motor Car Co. v. Johnson MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co United States v. Hudson and Goodwin Maritime V Cansulex St. Ives Laboratories v. Arif Perfumers Baroda V. Wildenstein Winterbottom v. Wright Statler v. Ray company Kusum Ingots v. India union 1852 1989 1915 1916 1812 1856 1988 1967 1889 1978 1887 Read More