S is for Small claims track!

In the UK, we have three tracks available to deal with cases. These are:

• Small claims track
• Fast track
• Multi track

The small claims track is for claims which do not exceed £5000. This type is more informal, and you can represent yourself as paying for legal advice/representation is not always covered even if you win the case. When deciding where to allocate the claim, the judge will consider:

1. that the amount in dispute does not exceed £5000
2. the case does not involve a lot of witnesses or difficult points of law 

You can still use the small claims court if it exceeds £5000, however both parties must agree and the court must be asked to allow it. 

Fast track claims are for claims over £5000, and up to £15,000. This is usually used where the value in question is high, but the legal points are not complicated. Representation is usually advised in these proceedings, and it is more formal than small claims.

Multi-track claims are for claims exceeding £15,000. This track is for the more complicated cases and will likely take the longest to resolve.

R is for Rule of Law

The Rule of Law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. It is a significant aspect of the British Constitution.

A.V. Dicey was a writer in the late 1800's and he emphasised how important the Rule of Law is, and summarised it under three heads:

1. No man could be punished or lawfully interfered with by the authorities except for breaches of law. 
2. No man is above the law, and everyone, regardless of rank, is subject to the ordinary laws of the land.
3. The rights and freedoms of citizens are best protected under the common law.

The first and second heads insinuate that government should have restraints; they should not have discretionary powers and there should be legal controls over the governments activities. Thus no-one, not even government officials, are above the law. By controlling or restricting what the government can do, it is protecting citizens from a government who may use arbitrary power to gain what they want, rather than what is good for the country. 

The third head is less relevant in today's society, what with the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998 which provides for individual human rights such as the right to a fair trial (Article 6), freedom from torture (Article 3) etc.  Dicey's view came from his faith in the judiciary; before we had the HRA 1998 or any obligations under EU law to protect individual rights, it was our common law and case law which established and protected our human rights, e.g. presumption of innocence. 

Q is for quid pro quo!

I am afraid there was barely anything to write about here, so again I've resorted to using a latin phrase.

Quid pro quo is associated with contract law, and is a latin phrase meaning 'this for that'. It refers to something that is given in exchange for something else. A contract is enforceable in court, and regulates literally everything in our society, from buying tickets to paying for a service (e.g. roof repairs, where you will give consideration in the form of money to someone who will provide a service to you, that being fixing your roof).

Quid pro quo is basically the same/similar to 'consideration' - one element needed when establishing whether you have an enforceable contract. This basically means that you exchange something of value (money), for something else of value (a service such as roof repairs).

So another example would be, Adam (A) goes to the shop to purchase a product, and Boots (B) sells him the product. A will provide something of value (money) for something else of value from B (the product).

P is for Parliamentary Sovereignty

I couldn't think of a decent enough P, then by thinking about my first year and Constitutional law, I managed to think of this topic.

Parliamentary Sovereignty is a principle of the UK constitution. It basically means that our parliament is the supreme legal authority in the UK, and can create or end any law. Our courts cannot overrule its legislation or declare it invalid, and as such the UK parliament is not subject to any legal limitation.

A.V. Dicey's view of Parliamentary Sovereignty consisted of four factors:

• Parliament is competent to pass any law on any subject
• Parliament's laws can regulate the activities of anyone, anywhere;
• Parliament cannot bind its successors as to the content, manner, and form of subsequent legislation,
• Laws passed by parliament cannot be challenged by the courts.

However, parliament has been believed to have limited its sovereignty, and the examples are:

1. The European Communities Act 1972 - this was the act which the UK passed to enter into the European Union, and as a result directly applicable EU law applies in the UK and takes precedence over national law. 
2. The Human Rights Act 1998 - gives the judiciary the power 'declaration of incompatibility - if a UK law is passed which is incompatible with the HRA 1998, a declaration of incompatibility can be issued, meaning the law passed will need to be amended to comply with the HRA. (This is an example of binding future parliaments)

In theory, all Acts (such as the above) which bind out future parliaments are repealable, and as such parliamentary sovereignty is deemed to remain intact. 

O is for Obiter Dictum

O was rather difficult to find a word for, so this post will be short and sweet as there isn't much to be said about the topic!

Obiter dictum, also known as Obiter dicta, is a Latin phrase literally meaning 'statement in passing' or 'said in passing'. It is a remark or observation made by a judge that, despite being included in the body of the court's opinion, is not binding and is not essential to the decision.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis, statements which constitute obiter dicta are not binding, however in some jurisdictions such as England and Wales, they can be strongly persuasive.

When looking through cases and judges reasoning, it is often helpful to be able to identify what statements are obiter dicta, and what statements are 'Ratio decidendi'. This means 'the reason' or 'the rationale for the decision', and basically is the principle which the case establishes. The ratio decidendi is the part of the decision which is binding on the lower courts.

N is for Negligence

Negligence is an area of Tort law. There are many different types of negligence, including medical negligence, economic loss, psychiatric illness etc. It is generally a failure to exercise the level of care which a reasonable person might exercise in the same/similar circumstances. This area is concerned with harm caused by carelessness, not intentional harm.

Before 1932 there was no Duty of Care in negligence. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson (a friend of a purchaser who had been bought a drink found a decomposed snail in her ginger beer, and sued Stevenson).

To prove a negligence claim, it must be proved that:

• There was a duty of care
• The duty was breached
• The defendant's (B's) conduct caused the harm suffered (Causation)

The more recent case, Caparo v Dickman introduced a 3 part test to establish whether a Duty of care existed.

Harm must be:

1. Reasonably foreseeable
2. a relationship of proximity between the plaintiff and defendant
3. It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.

To prove whether a breach of duty existed, the standard of the 'reasonable person' is used - this is objective and is just an ordinary person.

Interesting part below

Skilled defendants have a different standard. Therefore someone claiming to be a specialist/professional is that of a 'reasonable professional' - e.g. a doctor or car mechanic. Here is the horrible part - if you are a junior doctor, and have just started training, you are still held to this professional standard. No allowance is given for a lack of experience. (Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority is the case establishing the standard in relation to doctors.)

The case of Nettleship v weston requires a novice driver to show the same standard of care as a reasonably confident driver. So, if you're a learner on your first few lessons or even possibly your first lesson and you cause a crash, you could be sued for failing to meet the required standard of a 'reasonable person', which I think is a bit harsh (but alas, it is the law!).

Back to the boring bits
There are other requirements that can be looked at, but i'm just going through this briefly and as such shall proceed onto causation.

To establish causation, first you test for factual causation, known as the 'but for' test.
But for D's conduct, would A have suffered the consequences? (in short).
It must not be too remote (unforeseeable).
Without my text book I cant go into too much detail (for fear of being wrong) so I shall leave it there :) Hope its not been too boring!

M is for Magna Carta 1215

The picture may not be clear, and you won't be able to read it (unless you have uber eyesight and can understand Latin), however this is an example of England's Magna Carta. There are only four originals left, and one happens to be in Lincoln Castle (where I have bought this nice fake one and took a picture of it from my wall).

Most of the following info will be taken from my Constitutional law book: (Hilaire Barnett, Constitutional and Administrative Law (8^th edn, Routledge 2011)


The Magna Carta of 1215 represented a formal settlement between the Crown and the Barons. It is considered an important part of the UK's unwritten constitution. Although it is not particularly significant legally today, it symbolised the limitation of monarchical power and the protection of liberties.

The most relevant part more connected to today's legal system is clause 39, where the king promised "No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land."

It must be noted that as the document was created by the barons, for the barons, to protect their rights and property, they did not have the rights or well-being of the commoners in mind.

Hope this was mildly interesting! Wrote it before bed, and I'm a tad tired, so hope its all up to scratch :)