The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Original post by roh
True :colondollar:

Just the nagging fear of landing up looking a truly colossal cock by managing to piss them off by just submitting a blank one or 'I really, really want to be a solicitor and have a big cheque, pretty please can I have a place nice admissions person?' in the one year they do fill up.

Will probably just knock out 100 words in a bored moment and send that.


Well, you might as well write something proper. But it's obviously highly unlikely they're going to start comparing personal statements before - say - degree classifications.
Original post by roh
About to do my LPC applications and wondering how much I have to do for the personal statement bit?

I know it's not much and I have many better things to be doing with my life, but is there an amount you have to do just out of politeness or something?

I realise this sounds daft, but don't want to risk someone getting arsey and me feeling like a total knob by somehow contriving to get rejected from the LPC.


If you are applying to the College of Law, you are making the rash assumption that a real life person is going to read your application.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lpc+selection+criteria&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CDAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.college-of-law.co.uk%2FBusiness-Change-Programme%2FPDFs%2FGDL-and-LPC-full-time-offers-and-acceptances%2F&ei=8dKFUP2wDInS0QWrnYGoBQ&usg=AFQjCNF-rc9p9RdNi1XdNuNCwBr2jk3FDQ

Please also note their pretty little diagram with its references to "admissions", "teaching" and "academic standards".
Having a little difficulty with duty of care. Street on Torts seems adamant that the caparo test should always be used when establishing a duty of care, and that previous case law would support the third limb of the test. However, my lecturer & tutor all say that when there is already a well established duty, then there is no need to refer to Caparo. My only problem with accepting that is, for example in the case of a doctor patient relationship, by saying that the doctor owes a duty of care to the patient, that says nothing about the extent of the duty of care.
Original post by zaliack
Having a little difficulty with duty of care. Street on Torts seems adamant that the caparo test should always be used when establishing a duty of care, and that previous case law would support the third limb of the test.


I don't think that those statements are contradictory. The Caparo test should be used when establishing a duty of care, but if the duty of care is already established then there is no reason to refer to it. In practice it would be absurd if every time a road accident case came to court the claimant had to show that the defendant driver owed other road users a duty of care :smile:

My only problem with accepting that is, for example in the case of a doctor patient relationship, by saying that the doctor owes a duty of care to the patient, that says nothing about the extent of the duty of care.


Sure, and it's not even strictly correct to say merely 'a doctor owes a duty of care to his patient', because that doesn't specify what the duty is. Otherwise we could say that every person owes every other person a duty, because, for example, they have a duty not to negligently inflict injury on them by flailing around with their fists. And a doctor probably doesn't owe a patient a duty to, for example, not give them terrible horse-racing tips. A duty can only meaningfully cover a specific situation. So a doctor has a duty to inform a patient of the risks associated with a course of treatment the doctor is recommending (Chester v Afshar). A doctor has a duty to treat the patient (Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea), etc.
Original post by Forum User
I don't think that those statements are contradictory. The Caparo test should be used when establishing a duty of care, but if the duty of care is already established then there is no reason to refer to it. In practice it would be absurd if every time a road accident case came to court the claimant had to show that the defendant driver owed other road users a duty of care :smile:



Sure, and it's not even strictly correct to say merely 'a doctor owes a duty of care to his patient', because that doesn't specify what the duty is. Otherwise we could say that every person owes every other person a duty, because, for example, they have a duty not to negligently inflict injury on them by flailing around with their fists. And a doctor probably doesn't owe a patient a duty to, for example, not give them terrible horse-racing tips. A duty can only meaningfully cover a specific situation. So a doctor has a duty to inform a patient of the risks associated with a course of treatment the doctor is recommending (Chester v Afshar). A doctor has a duty to treat the patient (Barnett v Kensington & Chelsea), etc.


Ah I suppose. Guess I'm just going to use the simple 'doctor-patient' special relationship, instead of Caparo next time. I'm really starting to think Street on Torts isn't actually a good book. They've only talked abstractly about these things; not once have they mentioned common duties, only the rarer ones.
nulli tertius
...


If you're free, could you answer a quick question for me? You're one of only two people on this site who I think can answer this (because it's an LPC question relating to solicitor conduct). That being said, if any law student here knows the answer, would greatly appreciate it: exam's on Monday!

So in the FSMA Regulated Activities Order, Art 4(4) only applies to credit institutions and A4(4A) applies to other individuals. Does Art 4(4A) affect more exclusions than Art 30, 66 and 67? We've been told there's a huge list of other exclusions it affects but I can't find any evidence of this whatsoever and when we asked our PCR guy, he told us that some exclusions won't refer to it explicitly but will be affected - which seems counter-intuitive to me and I'm wondering if they've mixed people up with credit institutions :\
Original post by gethsemane342
If you're free, could you answer a quick question for me? You're one of only two people on this site who I think can answer this (because it's an LPC question relating to solicitor conduct). That being said, if any law student here knows the answer, would greatly appreciate it: exam's on Monday!

So in the FSMA Regulated Activities Order, Art 4(4) only applies to credit institutions and A4(4A) applies to other individuals. Does Art 4(4A) affect more exclusions than Art 30, 66 and 67? We've been told there's a huge list of other exclusions it affects but I can't find any evidence of this whatsoever and when we asked our PCR guy, he told us that some exclusions won't refer to it explicitly but will be affected - which seems counter-intuitive to me and I'm wondering if they've mixed people up with credit institutions :\


This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Article 4 (4) basically says that people/companies who are broking, jobbing or dealing in City type investments for a living cannot claim exclusion under those four sections. It has nothing to do with credit institutions. Most of the people caught by this will be middle-men of one sort or another.

Article 4A says that folk who are broking insurance policies are not excluded under Articles 30, 66 and 67. Rather they have to satisfy the much narrower test in Sch 4 to not be subject to the Regulations.

If you look at the other exclusions how many of these could apply to the activity of insurance mediation ie broking insurance policies?

Law firms don't use these exclusions. Instead they rely on section 327 and the SRA Financial Services (Scope) Rules 2001
Original post by nulli tertius
This doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Article 4 (4) basically says that people/companies who are broking, jobbing or dealing in City type investments for a living cannot claim exclusion under those four sections. It has nothing to do with credit institutions. Most of the people caught by this will be middle-men of one sort or another.

Article 4A says that folk who are broking insurance policies are not excluded under Articles 30, 66 and 67. Rather they have to satisfy the much narrower test in Sch 4 to not be subject to the Regulations.

If you look at the other exclusions how many of these could apply to the activity of insurance mediation ie broking insurance policies?

Law firms don't use these exclusions. Instead they rely on section 327 and the SRA Financial Services (Scope) Rules 2001

Thanks. I thought it was odd that we had to read around the wording. The extract we got talks about credit institutions. But it sounds like they've mixed up the two articles which i thought might be the case.

Yeah, I didn't think the exclusions had much merit but we have to go through a "fascinating" process called the FSMA decision tree every time we answer a question and exclusions are one of the parts of it...
I've spent the entire weekend procrastinating :frown:. Going to work my butt off tonight to get Trusts & Tort done.
Original post by zaliack
I've spent the entire weekend procrastinating :frown:. Going to work my butt off tonight to get Trusts & Tort done.


More fun than me - I've spent the entire week learning PCR and Solicitor's Accounts.

Exams tomorrow: you are going DOWN!

Hopefully.
So annoying. Virgo is saying that, in an authorised sale of trust property, overreaching will occur but doesn't mention anything about the requirement of two trustees. So, does there have to be two trustees for overreaching to occur?

Original post by gethsemane342
More fun than me - I've spent the entire week learning PCR and Solicitor's Accounts.

Exams tomorrow: you are going DOWN!

Hopefully.


Sounds like your having a blast :wink:

Good luck with your exam!
Original post by zaliack
So annoying. Virgo is saying that, in an authorised sale of trust property, overreaching will occur but doesn't mention anything about the requirement of two trustees. So, does there have to be two trustees for overreaching to occur?



Sounds like your having a blast :wink:

Good luck with your exam!


I'm 99% sure that you need two or more trustees - Dixon certainly seemed to think so. I can't remember whether it had a statutory basis (try checking the footnotes of his book!).

Sorry I can't be of more help with regard to providing a credible source. :p:

EDIT: Yep, just found it. Confirmed in City of London BS v Flegg [1987] that under s.2(ii) LPA 1925 you need two or more trustees. Here. :yy:
(edited 11 years ago)
Opinions on

Land Law text Cases and materials - McFarlane, Hopkins, and Nield
Tort law 4th ed - Mcbridge and Bagshaw
Criminal law text, cases, and materials - Herring 5th ed
Original post by tehforum
Opinions on

Land Law text Cases and materials - McFarlane, Hopkins, and Nield
Tort law 4th ed - Mcbridge and Bagshaw
Criminal law text, cases, and materials - Herring 5th ed


1) Never used it, so I'm not sure. I went with Dixon (he was my supervisor!), although some of my peers used Megarry & Wade (which, incidentally, Dixon edits)

2) I liked it - nice and clear and can be supplemented with Winfield & Jolowicz if you want something a bit meatier. The only thing I would say is that there are some issues (vicarious liability being one, off the top of my head) where McBride and Bagshaw seem to be in the minority in their interpretation, and I'm not sure whether they're always clearly flagged up

3) Good book - wish I'd discovered it sooner! It's pretty comprehensive and has some good journal article excerpts in it; if I had my time over again, I'd definitely buy it
Original post by zaliack
So annoying. Virgo is saying that, in an authorised sale of trust property, overreaching will occur but doesn't mention anything about the requirement of two trustees. So, does there have to be two trustees for overreaching to occur?



Sounds like your having a blast :wink:

Good luck with your exam!


Only in a sale of land. A single authorised trustee can dispose of other assets.

It's early, and I don't have my statutes in front of me, but that provision to my recollection only applies to dispositions of legal estates in land. Only two trustees or a trustee corporation can give the buyer a valid receipt for capital in that case. Flegg is right (contrast state bank of India v sood), but only for sales of land subject to a trust.

Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 11 years ago)
Hi everyone, I'm in my first year and I'm pretty overwhelmed already!

Any advice on what I should be doing? (I know that's a pretty ambiguous question :smile: but concerning notes and reading) any tips? Thanks.




:smile:
Original post by Jellybeany
Hi everyone, I'm in my first year and I'm pretty overwhelmed already!

Any advice on what I should be doing? (I know that's a pretty ambiguous question :smile: but concerning notes and reading) any tips? Thanks.




:smile:


Get your notes done NOW as you progress through your course. Do not leave it till the end of the year towards exam time. You will not regret it and it will ease the workload and stress significantly when it comes to exam time. It may sound like common sense, but I think this is one of the best advice for law students.
Guys.

need some help

re: public policy and limiting duty on tort

Need one or two cases were the line of duty was in favour of helping the claimant!

cheers
Original post by tehforum
Guys.

need some help

re: public policy and limiting duty on tort

Need one or two cases were the line of duty was in favour of helping the claimant!

cheers


Are you talking about cases where a public body was the defendant? How about Kent v Griffiths, Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria (there was a duty but claimant lost on breach), Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police.
Original post by Forum User
Are you talking about cases where a public body was the defendant? How about Kent v Griffiths, Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria (there was a duty but claimant lost on breach), Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police.


Yes!

thank you

Latest