spygirl wrote: » I know we are keeping it light here, those are some pretty sobering numbers today. Just how unbreakable is that disclaimer do you reckon??? Asking for a friend.
HappyKitten62 wrote: » Oh absolutely! But no more lockdown as of yet.
IgoPAP wrote: » The increased case number is due to the family members and close connections of the specific clusters in meat-processing factories being tested, and not due to some general increase in community transmission numbers all over the country. Yesterday it was mentioned that a sharp increase is expected as all the connections were being tested this week. Nothing to panic about. Not yet at least.
spygirl wrote: » I'm less worried about a lockdown then I am about sitting in a room with strangers for three hours tbh. Measures are in place, it will be like shoplifting at Tesco, grand.
spygirl wrote: » I think different case. Mohamud is petrol lad who assaulted fella who tried to skip out on paying for petrol. Making sure people paid was closely connected with his employment, as was dealing with customers so liability applied. Close connection test being used recently a bit in UKSC re abuse claims, schools church etc. Expected we will be following it. Have done so already as far as I can recall. An O'Donnell judgment is on the outskirts of my brain somewhere
iamanengine wrote: » Cool thank you. Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud. Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge
spygirl wrote: » Oh god I would love a full vicarious liability question, passing off, defamation, bit of trespass to person and occupiers liability would be a dream come through. Maybe throw in liability for kids or animals for good measure. I can keep dreaming. Any bets on Nervous Shock making an appearance? I know it had been absent for a bit.
Fe1student1234 wrote: » I’m thinking it will be either nervous shock or pure economic loss as an essay - I think pure economic loss came up more recently than nervous shock but I think both could be due a run
iamanengine wrote: » Cool thank you. Just finished going through the summary there. I wouldn't say they have restricted the close connection test. Main issue in Various Claimants seems to be that he was following a personal vendetta rather than acting for his employer as was the case in Mohamud. Hopefully we get a VL question, would be lovely, and can show off that fresh 2020 case law knowledge Edit - Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he asked the employee a question and then got attacked pretty much. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?
spygirl wrote: » An essay on nervous shock, hmm hope not.Only thing I really know about that is the historical developments and the incremental v uniform test debate to flesh it out. Anything new in NS to be aware of?
iamanengine wrote: » That would be a lovely paper. Yeah I fancy Nervous Shock to come up! Weird thing about Tort, depending on what topics come up it could either be easy or a nightmare. In case you missed my edit in my last post - Just on the Mohamud case. I don't think the facts were that he tried to skip on paying petrol and that's why he was attacked. My manual says that he just asked the employee a question about getting photos printed and then got attacked. But close connection was found cos his job involved interacting with customers. Not sure though, maybe my manual left that part out?
spygirl wrote: » Apologies, I took this off topic. Right so vicarious Liability. Close connection test, would I be safe enough just taking in Lister, Elmonton and Reilly? is there anyone I am missing in that list?
lawd20 wrote: » Say you were to answer a close connection test essay question (q6 Oct 2018), you'd need more than those. Cases I'd suggest referencing: , Canada: Blazey v Curry Doe v Bennett TW v SEO UK: Lister Mohamad v Morrisons Supermarkets Magda v Birmingham Roman Catholic claimant being 12, and positionof priest in charge of youth activities also gave him special responsibilities and allowed him to develop the relationship with the claimant Various Claimants v The Catholic Child Welfare Society Various Claimants v Morrisons EE deliberately leaked 100,000 employees data online. Failed close connection test, distinction between actions of employees who are engaged, in furthering their employers’ business VS furthering self interests/on a frolic. Ireland: O'Keefe v Hickey and Department of Education Fennelly's close connection test (must be a close connection between the work EE is employed to do (i.e. the scope of employment) -and- the tortious act that they have committed. Hickey v McGowan (SC approving Fennelly in O'Keefe) Elmontem v Nethercross Limited & Ors: 2014: IEHC “close connection test” adopted. a case in which an employee, hit another employee,– the court held that even on the most liberal interpretation of the close connection test, the employer was not vicariously liable. Hope this helps!!
Fe1student1234 wrote: » What’s worrying me is that my sample answer made no reference to the close connection test at all for that question. Don’t think I’ll be relying on any sample answers anymore
Deleted User wrote: » What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic
[Deleted User] wrote: » What’s the likelihood on defamation making an appearance? And in what way do people think? I’m struggling with it as it’s so big a topic
Aoibhin511 wrote: » I can't decide if it's definitely due a break or has become a guaranteed question
godfather2 wrote: » I gambled on it being due a break previously and paid dearly for it. Honestly don't think there is much you can safely skip for this exam. Inch deep mile wide scenario.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1c2638d40c8423fc1a2b2b1a2a01a3b9.svg)
