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?
Mindfulness? Everyone seems to talk about it but what does it actually mean? It’s about living in the moment. A good way of understanding is thinking about how a dog approaches a walk. It enjoys everything around it focussing on whatever interests it. Meanwhile, you might be walking along beside your dog consumed with worry and not seeing any of the scenery around you. The dog is practising mindfulness and you are not!
Every week we go through updates from Lexis Nexis and make notes about changes in the law which will need to be incorporated in our guides as we do the next updates. Sometimes it feels like a hard slog but today’s updates have brought some excitement – we love law and we’re easily pleased! The Court of Appeal has ruled on not one but two cases which are in our Tort LLB guide.
The first decision is a reversal of the previous judgment. Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley is a tragic case but liability was probably always a bit of a stretch! An action was brought against the police following a fatal accident which occurred on a very icy stretch of road. This was the second accident of the morning. The police had attended the first accident, had made sure the road was cleared up and had put up a warning sign before departing. The widow of the deceased claimed that following their earlier attendance at the scene, the police had owed a duty to other road users (in particular her husband) to take action to mitigate the risk of a further accident on the same stretch of road. At first instance the court had agreed with her, but the Court of Appeal took the opposite view. The police had done nothing to exacerbate the risk when they had attended the scene of the earlier accident. An understanding by the police that the road was dangerous did not impose a duty on them to take action to mitigate risks for others. If you have our tort book you might want to make a note of this change (the case is on page 24). Think how impressed your tutors will be if you’re bang up to date on the latest Court of Appeal decisions!
In the second case which concerned vicarious liability the Court of Appeal has confirmed the restrictive approach to liability adopted at first instance. This seems entirely in line with the courts general limiting of vicarious liability. In Chell v Tarmac a practical joke went wrong. An employee of Tarmac deliberately placed a pellet next to the claimant and then hit it with a hammer causing a loud bang which damaged the claimant’s hearing. The Court of Appeal found that this action was not taken in the course of the prankster’s employment. There were hammers on the site, but they were not intended for such a use. The prankster had no work reason for being in the area where the event happened and had gone there for the specific purpose of carrying out the prank. There had been some tension between contractors, of whom the claimant was one, and Tarmac staff but this had recently improved and while the claimant had made one complaint he had not asked to be moved and this earlier complaint was not sufficient to find the employers vicariously liable.
Probably no surprises in either of these cases but it is nice to be up to date!
Not it seems a fear of catching Covid! Perhaps that’s not really too much of a surprise? The Equality Act 2010 allows for the protection of philosophical beliefs, and you may remember that this protection does extend to ethical veganism . The issue of whether protection extended to concerns about catching Covid and passing it on to vulnerable relatives was recently tested in the Employment Appeal Tribunal…
Typically essay questions are asking you to choose between two different points of view. Would it be a good idea for the UK to have a written constitution? Should the Human Rights Act be amended? Is trial by jury the best way to secure justice? Make sure you understand which two points of view are before you. Then decide which one you agree with.
Read the question. We mean REALLY read the question. Take some time to think what it’s trying to test and don’t just leap in to answer it. If you’ve done your work each week and engaged with revision but the question doesn’t seem to relate to anything on the syllabus you’re probably not reading it properly!
Here at Law Answered we go through law updates every week to make sure that we’re keeping up with the law and can update our guides effectively. Some weeks we find there’s nothing much to note but we’ve just come across three really interesting tort cases and thought we’d share them with you in advance of popping them into our guides for the summer release dates.
