Comments

  1. avatar says

    hi Do have to remember the medieval Latin phrases that the lecturer seems to be putting great emphasis on? Also Is there a need to know syllabus references that is found isome study text like C2 A.
    Thanks Allot

  2. avatar says

    Dear respected sir,

    This lecture is to continued right.. I mean regarding chapter 3. Can I know where I can find the lecture of you teaching
    > statutory interpretation presumptions
    > aids to interpretations
    > delegated legislation

    Thank YOU VERY MUCH.

    you are lectures are ACTUALLY TEACHING me what law is. Thank you :)

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Thanks for your complimentary comments :-)

      Now the bad news! If the lecture is not on the site, then it doesn’t exist?

      None of the three topics that you have identified is a major area and should be easily picked up from a reputable study text

      Apologies for not being more helpful :-(

  3. Profile photo of suspectzer0 says

    Respected Sir,
    It would be my first post on OT. There is something i wanted to ask you before i could carry on with the lectures and notes. My question is basically i am going to sit for December 2013 F4 examinations(ENG) . I wanted to know as these lectures are recorded somewhere around 2011 can they be used as a solo source if i am preparing for these upcoming examination (off course the videos and the notes i am talking about) ? I have a little over one month remaining until the exam so please reply fast!
    Thank you!

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      No – it is ESSENTIAL that you get a revision kit of past exam questions and answers and work through those. The course notes and videos are a pretty solid basis but you must get stuck into a revision kit.

      And keep posting whenever you feel the need

      • Profile photo of suspectzer0 says

        Respected Sir,
        I now have some other queries. First of all i wanted to ask isn’t past papers=kit? I downloaded the past papers and their answers and going through them. The only problem i face is sorting out the questions as i finish each chapter. Secondly, the Purposive Rule as defined in the Kaplan book (2013) has a reference of Sevenoaks RDC case law which in your course notes comes under the Mischief rule. Thirdly, The Book doesn’t include Nosciture a sociis/ In pari materia. I just wanted to know that were these laws still included in the answers or is it ok to go with the rules stated in the latest book. Standing by!
        Thank you!

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        Revision Kit contains many but not all of the past papers – so downloading past papers is certainly adequate.

        In my view, the Mischief Rule can be interpreted as part of the Purposive approach / rule

        Similarly Noscitur and In pari materia I seem to remember having read that they too are sub-elements of the Purposive Approach

  4. Profile photo of Chris says

    Hi Mike,

    i am new to this and am i am listening/watching your webinars. Could you just confirm for the Cases print out what we should be putting in the Area of Law. Is this where the law is either Civil or Criminal? And what does the principle mean? Probably a very simply answer and i’ve probably go my knickers in a twist but if you could help me to understand it will benefit me going forward.

    Many thanks, Chris.

    • avatar says

      I think it depends on the way you learn and how you intend to use the Cases Sheet. Personally I find it is better tostate in the ‘Area of Law’ column not only if it is civil or criminal, but also what area of the law. I then use the ‘Principle’ column to give myself enough detail to make sure I remember the case.

      For example;

      CASE NAME AREA OF LAW PRINCIPLE
      Whitely v Chappell Statutory Interpretation Golden Rule used. Son murders parents over £10, Literal
      Rule would result in him inheriting, clearly absurd.

      This is admittedly quite a simple case, but that is enough (for me) to apply it in an exam question. I also personally find it does help if I write some details of the case, simply as it helps me to remember what happened. Then even if I forget exactly what point it is trying to make, I can often figure it out.

      That is just how I do it, I would do it whatever way works for you. I should also make it clear that i am NOT a tutor, but did study law at university, and I found that this way helped me the best.

      Brilliant lectures, the lecturer is very personable, and, for me, the stories do make it! I sincerely wish my law lecturers made as much effort to make the material memorable!

  5. Profile photo of Runez says

    Sir,
    I just referred to my study text and they don’t have the ‘Whitely v Chappell’ case or the ‘re Sigsworth’ case as examples for the literal and golden rule. I’m curious if it would disadvantage me if I used the cases you mentioned and not the study text cases for the exam. Thanks.

  6. Profile photo of Kanika01 says

    Hello sir,
    The lectures are brilliant. Makes law more interesting than i ever imagined. Jus wondering if there is further lectures on chap 3 covering statutory interpretAtion presumptions and delegated legislations. Thanks.

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      Hi! No, what you see is what you get! Statutory rules and presumptions in interpretation are not frequently asked in the exams. But, no, there are no plans in the near future to add further lectures in this area. Remember, we have to leave you with something to do for yourselves :-)

  7. avatar says

    Due to the materials being updated the page numbers have changed for the cases – therefore I though I might note them as they may help others;

    Whitley v Chappell Page 129
    Gorris v Scott Page 133
    Evams v Cross Page 133

  8. avatar says

    re Sigsworth case,

    Dear sir, u mentioned the above case in Golden Rule, about a son asked for money from father n mother but were rejected. Son killed his parents. I checked up sigsworth case n it stated the only son killed his mother, not parent. Which is correct?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      The way I tell the stories is in a way that I hope you will remember and not necessarily precisely close to the facts! That’s not what matters in your situation. You need to remember principles – the cases merely illustrate the principles.

      Is a mother not a parent? So what’s your grievance – was it only one parent ( the mother ) and not both as I tell it?

      • avatar says

        if the mother was killed then the house would have gone to the father? so the son wouldn’t have benefited if the father was still alive?

      • Profile photo of suspectzer0 says

        Hi essem,
        Good point ! This forced me to research and google this case. I will quote the entire case just to save others time.

        What i learned was that “Son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will and under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her estate would be inherited by her next of kin, i.e. her son. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let the son who had murdered his mother benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply and that the golden rule should be used to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.”
        There was NO father i suppose(Dead imo) OR the mother raised the damned son herself.

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        So …… is that wildly different from how I tell it?

        You’re getting into way too much detail – but it’s good to see you developing a real interest in the fascinating paper that is F4

  9. avatar says

    Sir, do we have to learn each and every case name to illustrate the different rules involved, as in while answering any question do we need to quote anything from any cases that in past happened and relate to what we are dealing in present?

  10. avatar says

    Hi,

    I am a bit confused, I found in many other information on the internet about the case of whitely v chappel as the main example of the literal rule, and not of the golden rule, given that this the decision was literal and therefore the defendat was not guilty.

    but I have also seen in other information treated as the golden rule. is there any reason it´s been treated like that?

    • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

      @sherlyta, The golden rule is applied when the application of the literal rule leads to an absurd situation. So, by applying the literal rule to Whitely v Chappell, Chappell would be not guilty. But that’s absurd! Clearly, it cannot be right that you can vote twice. So the golden rule is applied.

      And that is how Whitely v Chappell can be used to illustrate both the literal rule and the golden rule

      • avatar says

        @MikeLittle, But surely you can only apply one or the other – “Unless it leads to an absurdity”. As the defendant was acquitted, the literal rule was applied. Had the Golden rule been applied, he would have been sentenced – If the presiding judge(s) didn’t treat it as Golden rule, how can it be an example of such?

        I merely put that out in the interest of good debate, but like the others before me, I noted quickly it didn’t concur with other sources, and did feel the need to check!

        The lectures are great by the way, they are a great supplement to my chosen study texts, and handy to listen to passively when my attention span is not quite up to sitting down and reading/writing!

        Also, just a small point – Surely it’s the Companies Act 2006, not 2005?

      • Profile photo of MikeLittle says

        @lukedavidizard, I can’t really follow your first paragraph, but what bits I CAN understand suggest that you’re trying to turn the law upside down. IF the literal rule had been applied, he would have been found not guilty, but that would be absurd. So, although the Courts will apply the literal rule, they ignore that rule in situations where the application of it would lead to an absurdity and in those situations they apply the golden rule which allows them to ignore the literal rule.

        If I have said Companies Act 2005, I apologise without reservation. Of course it’s Companies Act 2006

      • avatar says

        @MikeLittle, Thanks.

        The defendant was charged with impersonating a dead man to obtain an additional vote in an election. The relevant legislation made it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’. Since a dead man wasn’t entitled to vote, impersonating him couldn’t be an offence. Thus a villain was acquitted.

        The literal rule WAS applied, and he was found NOT guilty.

        Now the way I understand it is that the literal rule DID lead to an absurdity, but the Golden Rule was not invoked at this time, because it had not been thought of, or developed far enough.

        The first case to use the parallel doctrine was 2 years after Whitely and Chappell, in 1870…?

Leave a Reply