Legal Services Flashcards
(7 cards)
A woman is employed by a private charity that provides residential care services to vulnerable adults. The charity receives substantial funding from the local authority but operates independently, with its own board of trustees. The woman publicly criticises the charity’s management practices, alleging neglect and mistreatment of residents. Subsequently, the charity dismisses her for breach of confidentiality and bringing the organisation into disrepute. The woman claims her dismissal breaches her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
No, because the charity is not exercising functions of a public nature.
How should an appellate court (Court of Appeal) approach a Supreme Court decision that overrules a Court of Appeal precedent relied upon by the High Court, when the High Court judgment predates the Supreme Court ruling, in a negligence case on appeal?
The appellate court must apply the Supreme Court’s decision retrospectively, overturning the High Court judgment if the new ruling undermines the legal basis of the original decision.
Reasoning: Supreme Court rulings are retrospective (declaratory theory, Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council [1999]), and appellate courts apply the law as it stands at the time of the appeal (Re Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005]). The Court of Appeal is bound by the Supreme Court (Willers v Joyce [2016]).
Exception: Retrospective application may be declined in rare cases of significant injustice (R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex parte Evans (No 2) [2001]), but this is unlikely in a civil negligence case.
A woman works as a nurse in a privately-run hospital that provides services under contract to the National Health Service. She publicly criticises the hospital’s management practices on social media, alleging poor patient care standards. The hospital dismisses her, citing breach of confidentiality and damage to its reputation. The woman claims her dismissal breaches her right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
The hospital argues that as a private entity, it is not directly bound by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998). However, the woman contends that because the hospital provides public healthcare services under contract, it should be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the HRA 1998.
Yes, because it performs functions of a public nature under statutory authority.
The public nature of the function, which is the key test under s.6(3)(b) (per YL v Birmingham).
Indirect discrimination
Putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage.
Democratic accountability
Refers to the principle that government officials, institutions, and public bodies must be answerable to the people — typically through democratic mechanisms like elections, parliamentary scrutiny, transparency, and legal oversight.
A woman brings a civil claim against a local authority alleging negligence in the maintenance of a public footpath, resulting in her injury. The claim is initially heard in the County Court, where the judge finds partially in her favour but awards significantly lower damages than she sought. Dissatisfied, the woman seeks permission to appeal the damages awarded. Permission is refused by the County Court judge. She then applies directly to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The Court of Appeal also refuses permission. The woman now wishes to challenge the refusal of permission by the Court of Appeal, arguing that the refusal was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of a key precedent. She seeks advice on her next procedural step.
Apply to the Supreme Court for permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s refusal.
is correct because the Court of Appeal’s refusal is final, and the only remaining step is to seek permission from the Supreme Court, provided the appeal raises an arguable point of law of general public importance.
