Updated guides are coming soon!
We update our Core Guides every summer in time for the new academic year. We’ve had a fair few students get in touch already about when we’ll be releasing our next updates, so click here for the breakdown.
We are looking for a team of law student ambassadors for the 2024/25 academic year. If you want to expand your skills and develop your network, this is the role for you.
We have an experienced editorial team at Law Answered, but we’re always looking for bright students to give us feedback to improve our products. We want our guides to be the best they can be and to tell students what they really need to know for their exams - so that’s where our Student Advisors come in!
We are looking for student advisors who are currently studying the PGDL (or MA Law) and the SQE… apply now!
We are looking for a motivated, conscientious individual with excellent written, legal and communication skills and a love for helping students to join our team as a Legal Writer.
When it comes to getting through your law exams and finding your dream job can feel like the biggest challenge there is. We totally get it. So many questions. So many decisions. It’s overwhelming.
And if there is one thing law students don’t have… is a lot of spare time to be figuring this all out yourself.
That’s why we’ve created the Answered Squad. Want to find out more?
As the Covid 19 pandemic became increasingly disruptive and deadly in the UK the Courts produced a Protocol Regarding Remote Hearings (dated 26th March 2020). This effectively set a default position that court cases should move to remote hearings; it’s very flexible in permitting any practicable platform to be used (who would have dreamed in advance that the judiciary, bar and solicitors would so quickly have got to grips with the range of technologies available?).
We can all see what a massive challenge is being placed on the NHS (and indeed on health services around the world) from Covid 19. But is this health problem heavily impacting the law? It certainly is! We’ve already written about force majeure but here is a quick overview of some of the other areas impacted.
Land Law is really rather a marmite subject. Students tend to love it or loathe it but one of the areas of the subject with more general appeal is probably adverse possession.
There is something rather fascinating about the idea that if you can get into possession of some land and use it as you please for long enough, (without the true owner asserting any rights over it) then eventually it’s yours! Perhaps we all hope we’re going to be lucky enough to get some land this way?
The last fortnight has seen a rapid escalation of the COVID-19 outbreak in the UK. With this escalation, people in the UK have come to realise the very real effect it will have on everyone in this country. On 23 March 2020, Boris Johnson outlined strict new measures: people should leave home only to exercise once a day, to travel to and from work where "absolutely necessary", to shop for essential items and to fulfil any medical or care needs. Along with pubs, cinemas, theaters and leisure centres shops selling non-essential goods are now closed.
You probably know that limitation periods apply in respect of litigation proceedings; public policy reasons for this are fairly obvious. Generally applicable periods are either 3 or 6 years, so what if the claim was brought 35 years after the action complained of? A non-starter surely? Actually no. The action has been allowed to proceed in Young v Downey [2019].
Don’t make a sound – I’ve got a covenant for quiet enjoyment
Covenants by landlords to allow tenants quiet enjoyment of premises let to them are pretty standard and there are lots of cases around what is meant by that particular covenant. (For those of you yet to embark on the joys of Land law a quick translation of the first part of this – let’s go with “Promises by landlords to give tenants a bit of peace in the premises for which the tenants are paying rent”).
There has been much press comment on the outcome of the recent attempt by Bromley London Borough Council to secure what was effectively a borough wide ban to prevent the Gypsy and Traveller community from setting up camps. (Bromley v Persons Unknown 2020). The Local Authority’s application failed in the High Court and its appeal was unsuccessful.
The Supreme Court has once again made a finding against the government. This time it’s in connection with a really interesting case of false imprisonment. R (on the application of Jalloh) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019]. The unfortunate Mr Jalloh, a Liberian national was released from immigration detention and allowed to live at home under strict rules which imposed a curfew from 11.00pm to 7.00am daily.
Many of you who are studying the LPC this year are expecting to be examined on the new SRA Code of Conduct; this finally came into force on 25th November 2019. We have updated our LPC guide accordingly. But don’t worry – if you are being taught at an institution which is examining this year under the old rules - we can still let you have a copy of the previous version of our guide. (Do make sure you look at the new rules before you actually start work though!!)
If you’re in the process of studying EU, Public or Constitutional law now, then you need to read this post! It’s very likely that you’ll need to understand and refer to the concept in your exams, and to have a grasp what is now happening with Brexit. (If you have bought the relevant individual subject LLB guides, or the GDL guide, do read this as an update on your Brexit chapters).
Ethical veganism is a protected belief!
Well, who knew that? We’ve all got good (and about time too) at recognising groups protected under the Equality Act 2010. Most law students can probably recall at least the majority of the categories – age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief and sex. But how many of us would have thought that “belief” covered veganism?
Lots of people have been talking about the case R (on the application of Miller) v The Prime Minister but do you know what it was about? It’s a huge constitutional law case so it would be good for all aspiring lawyers to have an idea what it’s about.
It’s a common adage that constitutional law is meant to be dull and boring – you might or might not agree but it’s hard to argue that recent developments have not shaken up the image.
If you’ve bought our LLB guides on Public or EU law or our GDL guide you’ll have seen our Brexit chapters where we’ve worked through and explained the constitutional law challenges of Brexit. Brexit has provided a number of examples of the working of Separation of Powers. The executive (or government) has taken actions and then found itself challenged by Parliament and the courts. Brexit divides public opinion in every way. On the one hand it’s arguable that the shenanigans have demonstrated that the checks and balances in our constitution work, on the other hand, some argue that we must now proceed towards a written constitution. Maybe spend a bit of time thinking about where you are on this part of the debate?
But what was Miller 2 about? It isn’t in our guides as the circumstances that gave rise to it and the judgment occurred after we went to print. When Boris Johnson was elected Prime Minister by the membership of the Tory party he committed to leaving the EU on 31st October “Do or die”, with or without a deal. He promised to die in a ditch rather than ask the EU for a further extension to our membership period. He made these commitments knowing that he faced a Parliamentary majority on one aspect of Brexit – that was that the UK should not leave the EU without a deal. Mr Johnson knew that Parliament might try to thwart his plans. He decided to ask the Queen to prorogue Parliament (bring proceedings in both houses to an end) for a protracted period covering the party conferences (when business is usually suspended) allegedly to allow him to prepare for a Queen’s speech.
Many cried foul, arguing that the purpose of the prorogation was to prevent Parliament from taking action to avoid the possibility of a no-deal Brexit. At very high speed Parliament managed to pass an Act (the Benn Act) to achieve precisely that end. The legislation required Mr Johnson to write to the EU to request an extension if Parliament had not ratified a withdrawal agreement by 19th October.
Meanwhile Gina Miller, Joanna Cherry and others went off to court to get a declaration that the prorogation was illegal, and that’s exactly the decision that was made by the High Court. The advice given to the Queen to prorogue Parliament was unlawful and therefore the prorogation was “unlawful, null and of no effect.” Pretty seismic stuff in constitutional law terms. Lady Hale backed the judgment up with a powerful bit of imagery. Prorogation happens when commissioner go to Parliament with the appropriate papers, the judgment proclaimed that “it was as if the Commissioners had walked into Parliament with a blank piece of paper.”
If you want to read more about Brexit and the law or have an idea for an article yourself, check out our friends at The Student Lawyer, the number one source of free news and information created by law students for law students.
Who remembers Interfoto Picture Library v Stilletto Visual Programmes? It’s a contract case about incorporation of terms, in this case very onerous ones. The defendant borrowed transparencies from a lending library, the delivery note contained conditions providing for very high charges if the transparencies were not returned in 4 weeks. The defendant failed to read the terms and incurred a charge of over £3,700. On appeal the claimants were not able to sustain their claim, particularly onerous contractual terms have to be brought to the attention of the other party. This was not done. A very recent case has, obiter, made this clearer. Higgins v Evans stated that Interfoto did not create a general doctrine of unfairness in contract law. Interfoto is very unlikely to apply to a signed contract where all the terms are set out. Knowing this and referring to it in the right place could add a mark to a contract law LLB essay!
Oh, and if you did want to know what Higgins v Evans is about it’s relevant to LPC studies. It concerns a CFA (Conditional Fee Agreement). Very briefly the court allowed a solicitor to recover basic charges under a CFA where the client died before any recovery had been made. There was no right under the CFA for the client’s estate to pursue the claim in the event of his death and his family claimed that this amounted to an unfair term. The agreement had been very clear and they were unsuccessful.
When does Art.8 ECHR go too far?
Sometimes, we come across a case which just fascinates us from a moral as well as a legal perspective and we thought we’d share just such a case with you. In A Local Authority v JB Mrs Justice Roberts had to examine restrictions placed on a 36 year old man who suffered impaired cognition and autism.
