I.

LO1:
1. Question 1:

Type of legal source: In this case, the law is made by Secretary of State – a body outside
Parliament so this is a Delegated legislation. And this is the Statutory instruments which
are created by government departments to execute general principles of policy.

This legislation is made by Neil O’Brien - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State,

Department of Health and Social Care.

The content of this regulation:

- In execution of the authority provided by sections 186(6) and (7) of the Health and
Care Act 2022, the Secretary of State creates the following Regulations.
- The law specifies the effective time of specific articles as follows:
 Provisions take effect on October 1, 2022: section 97, 100, 177, 99, only in so
far as it inserts section 277A into the 2012 Act.
 Provisions take effect on November 1, 2022: section 175, 176.
2. Question 2:

A brief history of this case:

Okpabi and Appelants, include Richard Hermer QC, Robert Weir QC, Edward Craven
sued Royal Dutch Shell Plc and Respondents including Lord Goldsmith QC, Sophie J
Lamb QC, Dr Conway Blake (Solicitor Advocate), Tom Cornell. The appellants contend
that the oil leaks were triggered by the respondent.

In the first instance case was brought to the high Court of Justice. Here, the court held
that although there was a lot of evidence, all of it was not enough to impeach RDS.
Thereafter, the plaintiff's appeal was brought to the Court of Appeal. Although noticing
some errors in the high court of justice's ruling, most judges agree that RDS does not owe
duty of care. The Supreme Court postponed the appellants' plea for leave to appeal until
after its decision in Vedanta. Approval was obtained as a result of that decision. Here, the
court reviewed and proved the errors in the decision of the High Court. Since then, the
lawsuit has ended in favor of Okpabi and Appelants.

The Supreme Court allows the appeal. Lord Hamblen gives the lead judgment, with
which Lord Hodge, Lady Black and Lord Briggs agree.

The judgment of this case depends on 3 main precedents:

- As earlier noted in Vedanta and VTB Capital plc v Nutritek International Corpn
[2013] 2 AC 337, the Supreme Court emphasizes the necessity of balance in respect to
jurisdictional problems.

- Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3)
[2003] 2 AC 1 used to prove that he Court of Appeal committed a major legal error in
holding a mini-trial, which resulted to an improper response to the disputed factual points
and supporting documentation.

- Caparo v Dickman [1990] AC 605 is referenced to prove The Court of Appeal made
an error in determining whether a duty of care arises in this sort of situation.

The lower courts (courts of appeal, high courts, etc.) are bound by the Supreme
Court's rulings. The Supreme Court, in contrast, is not obligated to adhere to its own
decisions.

3. Question 3

Legislation

The government has two primary functions in legislation and lawmaking. The first stage
for the administration is to submit the Bill in the prescribed sequence: The government
produces a Green Book that gives legislative debates on its aim to alter the rule and
gathers their opinions, next outlines the expenses inside the White Paper, elaborates on
the remarks, and ultimately, the government official presents a Bill to Parliament.
Second, during the application of the legislation, the Cabinet may identify discrepancies
in the Bill and amend the record. Specifically, in situations of national emergency, the
Privy Council has legislative authority under the Emergency Powers Acts of 1939 and
1984 (Adams, 2010). A good example of Cabinet’s powers is during the Corona disaster.
They offer Parliament to develop the Public Health Act 1984 and the Coronavirus Act
2020 to be able to expand their decisions and powers during the pandemic (Skeffington,
2022) and (Nice et al., 2021).

Case law

As case law is largely created by the courts, therefore, the government has little influence
in the process of creating this law.

4. Question 4

Issue: Jennifer and Kevin are both female. Kevin, has spent many years living as a man.
Nonetheless, the Marriage Act of 1961 prevents their marriage.

Analysis: There will be 2 rules for statutory interpretation could be use in this case

Contextual Approach: Any words must always be interpreted within the context of
the statute as a whole. Here, the controversial word is "man". Depending on the
context, it is entirely possible to define Kevin as a man. He has lived most of his life
as a man, and has had many gender reassignment surgeries.
Purposive Approach: Here, the main purpose of the marriage act is to avoid cases of
illegal and forced marriage. Kevin and Jennifer getting married in fact makes a lot of
sense. When both are old enough and ready to come together voluntarily.

Conclusion: Kevin will be considered as a husband. Based on 2 rules for statutory

interpretation.

II. LO2:
1. Question 5
Issue: Paul completed the requirements given by the GFA, but the GFA side did not
accept it because they said that Paul completed the request after they took down the
contest. That means their offer is no longer available.

Analysis: First, this GFA contract is a unilateral agreement in which GFA is the one who
offers the prize and the participant is the one who takes the challenge to get that prize.
This a Unilateral offer.

Regarding the seriousness of the contract between the two parties, based on the Carlill v
Carbolic Smoke Ball Co case, it can be seen that the contract between the two is
considered serious because the advertisement could be accepted by any person who knew
of it. The contract has met the conditions as Paul has actually accepted to participate in
the challenge of GFA.

Based on Contract Law and the lawsuit of Ramsgate Hotel Co. Ltd v Montefiore (1866),
an offer will expire if approval is not received within a SPECIFIC time. However, as
soon as he heard about the award, Paul IMMEDIATELY came to confirm and join the
challenge.

However, the Sale of Goods Act 1979 affirms that the offer can withdraw the offer at any
time. But, if the GFA wants to withdraw the offer, it must give Paul a notice, or Paul
must reasonably know that the offer has been withdrawn. Nevertheless, here, when Paul
participated in the challenge, he could not know that.

Conclusion: Paul can win the case and get free annual membership of GFA. By using
various rules and case law.

2. Question 6

Issue: Due to problems in the company and disagreements with bosses, Raven resigned.
After that, she went back to sue her old company on unfair dismissal.
Analysis: This is an employment law case. Because Raven is the one who voluntarily
resigned, so in this case, her case can only be considered from the perspective of a
Constructive dismissal.

First, Raven worked smoothly and effectively before company got a new owner. This
proves that she is completely capable to be able to complete the work required by the
previous employer.

After the new owner took over, things took a turn for the worse. However, the reason for
Raven's low performance was late payments from the company's budget. This means that
it is impossible to say that the company's problems were entirely caused by Raven. But,
the new leader asserted and had words that made Raven negatively affect psychology.
Based on of Fletcher v Countrywide Estate Agents (2017, ET), criticism of managers
should not be directed at an individual. In this case, the director criticized Raven directly
in front of everyone.

Moreover, the company bears not only direct liability but also vicarious liability. The
Martin v Parkham Foods case (2006), showed that the boss has a responsibility to
prevent colleagues from saying malicious words to Raven. Although the manager was
aware of this, he did not implement it

Conclusion: Raven can win the case. By application of some case law

3. Question 7

Issue: Belinda had a serious injury as a result of inadequate service by High Heaven.
Matthew, Jessica were nervously socked while Tom didn’t suffer any injury and tried to
rescue the kids. All of them later sued High Heaven.

Analysis:

- Belinda: In the case of Belinda, she is the primary victim. High Haven certainly owes
Belinda a duty of care. Based on Stennett v Hancock (1939), it is reasonably
 foreseeable that poor cabin maintenance will result in serious injury to occupants,
specifically Belinda.
- Jessica: In the case of Jessica, High Haven also has a duty of care for Jessica. Based
on the McLoughlin v O'Brian case (1982, HL), although Jessica did not directly
witness the accident, she was psychologically affected when she witnessed her child's
accident in the hospital. In particular, it was she who saw the consequences of the
accident in the hospital, not through any witness accounts.
- Matthew: In the case of Matthew, according to (Adams, 2010), Matthew can be
considered an involuntary participant. This was because the main cause of the
accident was High Heaven's carelessness in maintenance, not Matthew's fault. Based
on Dooley v Cammell Laird (1951), it can be seen that Matthew was the one who
directly witnessed the accident, he was also completely psychologically affected
because he thought he was the one who caused the accident. In this case, High Haven
must also have the duty of care for Matthew's case.
- Tom: Based on the Chadwick v British Railways Board case (1967), it is reasonable
to foreseen that Tom could have suffered psychological problems since he was a
direct witness and also a participant in that accident. However, a new case law which
is Monk v Harrington Ltd and Others (2008) had other decision. High Haven here
will not owe any duty of care to Tom. This is more reasonable than the previous
lawsuit because Tom did not have any injuries affecting the body, nor did he fear that
he caused an accident. He was even mentally strong enough to save other children.
The application of the new law also aims to avoid liability that should not have been
incurred.

Conclusion: All of them can afford to sue High Haven for nervous shock and tort, except
Tom.

III. LO3
1. Question 8
Issue: Bill, Donald, and George are partners in a company called KwicPic. When
restoring an expensive painting for costumer, due to the careless of George, the painting
was irreparably damaged.

Analysis:

a) Reason for suing both tort and breach of contract:

To begin with, it is entirely possible for a customer to sue KwicPic for both tort and
breach of contract. This is because Kwicpic violated both of the following:

- Tort: Kwipic must have a duty of care to the client, based on Stennett v Hancock
(1939), it is foreseeable that the client will not be able to sell the painting due to
damage George caused. Furthermore, the guest also fully demonstrated that KwiPic or
specifically George had not been reasonably careful in carrying out his duty of care,
based on the case of Hilder v Associated Portland Cement (1961).
- Contract: When George took on the responsibility of renovating the painting, it meant
that Kiwpic had triggered a contractual agreement with that client. This is based on
the Contracts Act 1990. According to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 Kiwpic
will be legally liable for its negligence in damaging the painting.
- Pursuant to the Civil Liability Act 1978, the execution of both lawsuits at the same
time will not cause any obstacles or barriers for Kiwpic to accept liability and make
compensation.
b) The company is unlimited company

Since the company is operated as an unlimited partnership, therefore, without a separate

legal existence from its members, all partners are personally liable for debts, obligations
and others legal.

According to the Partnership Act 1890, responsibility can be attributed as follows:

- Section 9 point out that all 3 people (Bill, Donald and George) will be jointly
responsible for compensation for damage to customers. The common property of the
 company will be used first, then the personal property. The compensation must be
compensated by personal property which can be divided equally or negotiated by all 3
people.
- Section 11 asserts that all 3 are responsible for both tort and breach of contract.
Although it was George who caused the damage to the painting, the firm is
nevertheless responsible for wrongs.
- Section 12 indicates that one of the three main members of Kiwpic can fully stand to
take personal responsibility, specifically here could be George. If George doesn't take
the blame personally, then all three will be equally obligated to compensate
c) The company is LLP

Although George was the main cause of damage to the painting and was liable, however,
under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000, Kiwpic was liable to the same extent
as the member.

Section 6 of the Act point out that Bill, Donald and George's liability will be limited. In
this case, George will be more responsible for being the one who directly harmed the
painting.

Finally, if Kiwpic loses the case, the company's assets will be used to compensate for the
damage. If the company's assets are not enough, the members will have to use the capital
available in the company to compensate.

Conclusion:

- The costumer can sue Kiwpic on both tort and breach of contract.
- If the organization is an unlimited partnership, all members have joint as well as
several responsibilities for debts, obligations, and other liabilities.
- If the company was a LLP, each partners has limited liability.
2. Question 9

A private corporation should have 1 director, but a public firm ought to have 2 (Adams,
2010).
The power of Director:

Sections 179 and 166 of Companies Act 2013 define a company's directors' powers and
obligations as: exerting power by which the business has lawful power or responding
appropriately on occurrences over which the firm has legal jurisdiction (Nathani, 2022).
If the board of directors exceeds its authority, the corporation may be obligated by the
executes instructions. The case of Freeman & Lockyer v Buckhurst Park Properties Ltd
(1964). In this case, the company's charter there is the appointment of an executive
director. However, in practice, the company has not done this. Therefore, no one in the
company has the right to be the CEO. If the company doesn't have that charter, someone
can do it. This is an excellent example of a director's abuse and the defendant's
obligations on trial.

The duties of Director

The company Act 2006 has changed many things about the duty of the director. If before
2006, the director's responsibilities were still vague and loose. However, all have been
codified into law. Instead of having only 2 main responsibilities, a director will now have
9 duties from section 171 to 177. Of which, there are more clarified rules, section 172 is a
specific example. The new law change will help eliminate group interests in the business,
forcing directors to create benefits for all members in general. Hellard and Others v
Carvalho [2013] is based on this law, under section 172, he will not be able to prove that
what he did could benefit ‘its members as a whole’. Henceforth be responsible for breach
of S172.

 Evaluate: changes after the Company Act 2006 made the powers and responsibilities
of directors clearer. This is considered reasonable because it minimizes the ability of
directors to circumvent the law and realize their personal goals. Compared to case
law, legislation will be updated faster, more suitable for the development of
businesses. This helps keep the rules up to date.
3. Question 10
There are two ways in order to raise capital of a company (Adams, 2010):

Share capital: According to Section 582 of the Companies Act of 2006, the corporation
can normally transfer interests only in exchange for cash or money is probably value. In
exchange for services done to a private corporation, shares might be granted. This is not
permitted for a public firm. Furthermore, Section 693 states that the acquisition and sale
must be authorized by the shareholders.

Loan capital: Debenture stock, like shares, can be issued by public enterprises and sold
to the public through the Stock Exchange. The bondholder agrees to lend a specific
amount that can be repaid with interest after a certain period of time. Issuing bonds will
help businesses have more investment capital without having to issue too many shares.
This is to help protect the interests of large stake holders in the business.

 Evaluate: The Company Act of 2006 made several adjustments to each of these
methods of raising capital. The modifications, for instance, are primarily intended to
safeguard shareholders instead of to promote enterprises. The Act imposed various
limitations on the issue of shares. These are in place to prohibit the firm from
lowering its assets to the detriment of debtors. The primary constraints include the
stock value and the firm's own buyback of its individual shares. The protection of
investors is considered reasonable because this is also a form of stimulating
investment protection, creating a new trend. It is thanks to this newly enacted law that
the economic crisis of 2008 was promptly resolved by the UK by regaining fairness
for many investors.
IV. LO4
1. Question 11

First, this is a Commercial sales contracts case, with Smart Constructor as a buyer and
Hard Steel as seller. Therefore, it is civil case. Base on the Courts and Legal Services
Act 1990, this case is about the conflict in contract which worth £28,000. Therefore, it
has enough requirement to brings the case to the multi-track system in the County Court,
because all the action worth over £25.000 and this is a Commercial sales contracts case.

After the final decision, if any party is not satisfied with the outcome, it may recommend
that the case be brought to the Court of Appeal. If decisions in the Court of Appeal are
still appealed, the case will be reviewed and referred to the Supreme court. Judgments
here will be final (Adams, 2010).

 Evaluate: The arrangements under which the case is brought to the proper court now
are quite reasonable. It divides cases equally among all courts. The High Court does
not need to deal with as many cases as it did before the Courts and Legal Services Act
1990. This is intended to increase the likelihood of a case being resolved within a
year, which means more justice is found.

Procedure to deal with case

Bringing a civil action

a) Letter claim and pre-action protocols

As per the new Civil Procedure Rules, the plaintiff (Hard Steel), must send the defendant
a letter of claim explaining their allegations in full, and the Smart Constructor should
answer with an account of their conduct. Pre-action procedures need exceedingly detailed
and exact information.

b) The issue of claim and the defendant’s response

Hard Steel must finish the claim form and submit it to the court, where it is evaluated and
served on the defendant. Then, within 21 days, Smart Constructor must either accept the
claim or submit a thorough defense (Adams, 2010). If the Smart Constructor fails to
respond, Hard Steel may seek immediate judgment against the Smart Constructor for any
sum specified in the claim.
 c) The interlocutory steps

The interlocutory stages are indeed the time between both the submission of the claim
and the hearing when detailed preparations for the hearing were made. The court is
anticipated to have several discussions in multi-track cases (Adams, 2010).

The trail court of the case

The court considers legal arguments from both parties, who are usually represented by a
lawyer (Adams, 2010). Both sides have the right to summon and question experts. The
court that considers the case will decide which party won and explain why. A monetary
prize might be used as a remedy in this case.

Executing the judgment

If Hard Steel wins in court they will won a significant battle yet not the war. If the Smart
Constructor is found liable, Hard Steel gains the position of a judgment creditor;
however, this doesn't oblige Smart Constructor to pay; the Hard Steel could be required
to appear to court to take actions to enforce the decision.

2. Question 12:

The principles define the distinction between litigation and arbitration.

Arbitration is a conflict resolution method in which an unbiased third party is chosen to

investigate the issue. Meanwhile, litigation is described as a legal practice in which
litigants seek conflict settlement through the courts. Second, litigation might be civil or
criminal in character, whereas arbitration is civil in nature. Third, arbitration seems to be
a private method of resolving disputes between parties, whereas litigation is a public
procedure. Furthermore, the parties pursuing a settlement decide where the issue will be
arbitrated, whereas litigation can only take place in court. Finally, the arbitrator's decision
is final and binding, with no further appeals permissible. In the meanwhile, litigants have
the opportunity to appeal to a higher court.

Strength and weakness of both methods

Arbitration

The arbitration procedure has the benefit of ensuring privacy for the participants in the
dispute and is more likely to result in an amicable resolution in between parties than
litigation. This might be useful in a specialized firm when the number of contractual
states is restricted. Typically, the issue may be quickly at a time and location that is
suitable both for parties. Arbitrators' business experience allows them to comprehend the
problems at hand.

However, there may be some drawbacks: Arbitrators have less authority than court to
collect evidence from sides and accelerate procedures; they may lack required legal
understanding, prompting an appealing, that will raise the expense of the procedures.

Litigation

Because of the way the judicial system is structured, judgments obtained via litigation
obligate parties to collaborate or risk certain repercussions. Both sides have the option to
file an appeal. This allows a prior judgment to be overturned or a rerun to be held, which
may be helpful if one side is unhappy with the trial court's order. When the litigation
period starts, plaintiffs will be able to obtain information from the other party in the form
of documents and verbal responses through process which is known as document creation
and disclosure testing. Furthermore, such cases are reference in character and generate
case law.

As compared above, Litigation lawsuits are often costly and time consuming. Moreover,
it also affects many relationships of both parties. Finally, the lawsuit is a Public forum,
which can adversely affect the reputation of the parties involved. Brogden v
Metropolitan Railway Co. (1877, HL) is a prime example when the lawsuit resulted in a
significant decline in Metropolitan revenue

 Evaluate: both methods of proceedings bring about the same purpose of adjudicating
conflicts. However, based on the differences between the methods, it can be seen that
 complicated cases, requiring a lot of evidence, should be adjudicated by litigation. In
contrast, cases requiring high confidentiality should be adjudicated by arbitration.

Word count: 3855

 References

1. Durrant, T. (2021) Cabinet, The Institute for Government. Available at:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/cabinet (Accessed: November
23, 2022).
2. Lexisnexis (2006) Corbett v. Corbett - 280 ga. 369, 628 s.e.2d 585 (2006),
Community. Available at:
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-corbett-v-corbett
(Accessed: November 24, 2022).
3. Legislation (2004) Gender recognition act 2004, Legislation.gov.uk. Statute Law
Database. Available at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7/contents
(Accessed: November 25, 2022).
4. Adams, A. (2010) Law for business students: UK edition. Pearson Education Ltd.
5. Nice, A., Lily, A. and Marshall, J. (2021) Government emergency powers and
coronavirus, The Institute for Government. Available at:
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/emergency-powers (Accessed:
November 27, 2022).
6. Skeffington, D. (2022) Emergency powers in the United Kingdom, The Constitution
Society. Available at: https://consoc.org.uk/emergency-powers-in-the-united-
kingdom/ (Accessed: November 27, 2022).
7. Nathani, V. (2022) Powers and duties of directors of a company - the ultimate guide,
Draft My Documents. Available at: https://www.draftmydocuments.com/powers-and-
duties-of-directors-of-a-company/ (Accessed: November 29, 2022).
8. LawTeacher. November 2013. Brady v Brady Case Summary [1988] 2 All ER 617
HL. [online]. Available from: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/brady-v-brady.php?
vref=1 [Accessed 29 November 2022].
9. LawTeacher. November 2013. Advantages and Disadvantages of Raising Loan
Capital. [online]. Available from:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/commercial-law/advantages-and-
disadvantages-of-raising-loan-capital-commercial-law-essay.php?vref=1 [Accessed
29 November 2022].