Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 13:17:54

From: Jason Neyers

Subject: UK Compensation Bill Published

I would put a different spin on it. The legislature thought it had to act because according to the leading negligence decisions, the concept of justice which ties them together, and the remedial function of the judge, the social utility of the conduct should be strictly irrelevant. It was the lower courts misinterpreting the leading decisions or being sloppy with the concept of justice which gives the impression that Andrew alludes to.

----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Oliphant
Date: Thursday, November 3, 2005 8:00 am
Subject: Re: [Fwd: ODG: UK Compensation Bill Published]

Fair point. On the brighter side, at least they haven't tried to change anything ...

>>> Andrew Tettenborn 11/03/05 12:55 PM >>>

What on earth is the point of Part I, except to boost shares in manufacturers of printer's ink? Even the explanatory notes say that it merely repeats what the courts have been saying for donkey's years. If this is a result of joined-up government I prefer the disjointed variety.

--
Jason Neyers
January Term Director
Assistant Professor of Law
Faculty of Law
University of Western Ontario
N6A 3K7
(519) 661-2111 x. 88435

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>