Questions for TGC Flashcards
(15 cards)
What other sets have you applied to?
I only applied to 5 sets. Others are more human rights focused given my work experience. But my interest is really in areas of the law that are human centred and involve stories about people. That’s why I’m interested in TGC’s practice areas - PI, inquests and inquiries, public law. And then of course the business and human rights practice of some TGC members. But I completely recognise that that’s a small area of your expertise and one which may well not form part of my practice.
Your background is very human rights focused, why are you applying to TGC?
Interested in areas of the law that are human centred and involve stories about people. That’s why I’m interested in TGC’s practice areas - PI, inquests and inquiries, public law. And then of course the business and human rights practice of some TGC members. But I completely recognise that that’s a small area of your expertise and one which may well not form part of my practice in the early years or at all!
What do you think that the outcome of Semenya v Switzerland should be?
The first and main issue in Semenya in my view is the jurisdiction issue [explain]. I
What did Swift v Carpenter decide?
Changed the law on the way to calculate damages where a claimant requires new accommodation following an injury. The previous authority on the point led to claimants being out of pocket when moving house due to concerns about creating a windfall rather than restoring victims to the position they were in before the injury. The change in the law meant that victims are now entitled to more money.
What is a recent case we have done that you have read about?
Mariana v BHP jurisdiction hearing
- Abuse of process point overturned by CoA (unmanageableness)
- Parallel proceedings point dismissed
- Reconfirmed liability of parent companies for actions of overseas subsidiaries
Which of our barristers’ work, aside from Russell Hopkins, are you familiar with?
Nicholas Moss KC - inquests and inquiries
James Arney KC - PI
What do you think of the Infected Blood Inquiry?
Are you familiar with BHP Mariana case?
Give three reasons that CMPs do not strike an appropriate balance between the right to privacy and national security interests
- D may have very little information about the case against them, making it difficult for even the special advocate to defend them
- Tendency to be overly cautious about national security concerns
- Risk of them being used in circumstances that are not truly justified by national security concerns, despite the judicial oversight
You cited A and Others v United Kingdom in your answer, what was that case about?
What would you do differently from Mark Henderson?
What is it that draws you to TGC?
Why personal injury law?
- Working with all different kinds of people, victims of injuries, employers, insurers, medical professionals
- Full spectrum of complexity, creating opportunities for junior barristers to run their own cases
- Lots of opportunities for courtroom advocacy
- Positive impact, both on individual level of helping claimant to obtain equitable redress, and on the societal level of raising awareness of safety issues and compelling those with a duty of care to exercise greater care
Why inquests and inquiries?
- Providing information and answers for victims
- Leading to broader reforms, societal level impact
- Raising public awareness
Recent PI case you found interesting
Supreme Court decision in January 2024 about secondary victims being able to claim for psychiatric injury suffered as a result of seeing relatives suffer from undiagnosed medical conditions as a result of the defendant’s negligence. The court rejected this claim, distinguishing the case from previous cases establishing that secondary victims can claim for psychiatric injury for witnessing an accident in which a close one dies or is injured. I thought this was an interesting case since it follows an interesting line of case law from, particularly, litigation arising out of the Hillsborough disaster. I thought the SC’s decision in rejecting the claims was appropriate, since it would not be proportionate to extend doctor’s duties to protecting the families of their patients who may witness their relative’s illness. It would also be difficult to establish the point at which the injury arose, since health often deteriorates over an extended period of time.
