416850
| Frage | Antworten |
| What is the Purposive Approach? | It seeks to get away from the artificial consideration of language and to use instead the purpose/intention behind the act. |
| Give a case which helps describe the PA. | Richard Thomas and Baldwins Ltd v Cummings Facts - When a machine was switched off workers were rotating in order to clean them by hand Statute - Factories Act 1987 'moving parts of a machine has to be fenced while in motion'. Outcome LR - Unlawful PA - Lawful as purpose was health and safety so it should be allowed as it was switched off. |
| Give a case which helps describe the PA. | Jones v Tower Boot Co Facts - Physical and verbal abuse of a non-white man at work, company was taken to court not employees. Statute - Race regulations Act 1976 'you cannot discriminate on the ground of their race in the course of an employment' Outcome LR - Employers defense was that what was happening was not in the course of an employment - correct - not guilty PA - Purpose was to illuminate racism in a work place and employer wad letting in happen so is liable. |
| What are the 2 advantages of the PA | 1) Correct approach when dealing with EU law 2) Likely to give fair result, avoids the LR |
| Give a case which helps describe the advantage that it is the correct approach when dealing with EU law? | Bulmer v Bollinger Facts - 'D' company wanted word 'champagne' to not be used by other companies. As EU law is less precise than English law, the LR couldn't be used do the PA was used. |
| Give a case which helps describe the advantage that it can produce a fairer result. | Coltman v Bibby Tankers Facts - Mr Coltman drowned when a tanker on which he was working on sank. Statute - Involved word 'equipment' Outcome - LR said not equipment PA - Purpose to keep people safe, so the tanker should included as equipment. |
| What are the 2 disadvantages of using the PA? | 1) Doesn't fit in with Parliamentary Sovereignty 2) Different judges will come to different decisions as to what the intention of Parliament was - depends on judge you get on the day |
| Give a case which helps show the disadvantage that it doesn't fit well with Parliamentary Sovereignty. | Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Facts - Deceased tenant had left tenancy to homosexual partner Statute - 'You can leave your tenancy to relatives' - family Outcome - Is a homosexual partner family? Lawful - Was in definition on family - 3:2 decision However, this should be Parliaments job |
| Give a case which best describes the disadvantage that the result depends of the judge you get on the day. | Pinochet Facts - Pinochet came to Britain for medical help, Spain wanted Britain to send him back Outcome - HL 3:2 said Human rights trumps Immunity (send back) Had to re-trail with different panel as one Lord had an interest Final result - Immunity trumps human rights so not sent to Spain |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.