Search results

May 6, 1969 Building — Safety regulations — Application — “Affect” — Workman's presence in particular place not reasonably foreseeable by employer — Whether workman affected by regulations — Workman not expressly forbidden to go to place in question — Whether impliedly authorised or permitted to be there — Workman's presence there unforeseeably foolish — Whether resulting accident entirely own fault — Liability of employers — Building (Safety, Health and Welfare) Regulations, 1948 (S.I. 1948, No. 1145), regs. 4(1), 27(2), 28(1).

February 5, 1969 Damages — Personal injuries — Assessment — Pension — Compulsory contribution — Police pension fund — Policeman disabled in accident — Assessment of lost earnings and pension rights — Whether pension deductible.

July 29, 1969 Factory — Statutory duty — Admitted breach by employer — Machinery not guarded — Injury to experienced employee — Whether negligent — Whether employee also in breach of statutory duty — Apportionment of blame — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 143 (1), (2).

October 24, 1969 Factory — Statutory duty — Dangerous machinery — Dangerous combination of machinery and material — Danger arising from “nip” between moving work‐piece and stationary bar — Automatic cooling device — Danger arising from coolant applied by hand — Practice known to employers — Whether foreseeable — Whether duty to fence — Factories Act, 1961 (9 & 10 Eliz. II, c. 34), s. 14(1).

Phillips, J. has drawn the distinction between wrongful dismissal at common law and unfair dismissal under statute. He points out the considerable difference which exists between the position at common law and the position under statute. “The common law” he says “is concerned merely with the contractual relationship between the parties, whereas a complaint of unfair dismissal…is concerned with the statutory right of an employee not to be unfairly dismissed.” There thus exists a fundamental difference between the two concepts, both of which are in their different circumstances important. In this monograph, it is proposed to treat the common law of wrongful dismissal. Statutory unfair dismissal will be the subject of discussion in a future monograph.

Explores judicial attitudes in professional negligence cases affecting liability for property investment advice. Focuses on the standard of work required to discharge the legal duty of care and on apparent contradictions in approach by the courts. Reviews a series of cases which are taken to exhibit traditional attitudes to professional liability and studies modern cases which are irreconcilable with those attitudes. Includes liability to third party mortgagors and to third party mortgagees in an analysis of the duty of care, and considers the implications of the perceived expansion of the advisor′s professional duties, which include potential conflicts of interest and the dichotomy between the standards current among professionally qualified and unqualified practitioners. Suggests that judicial attitudes are influential in shaping the practice of property investment advice, but that this intervention is fraught with difficulties as it creates uncertainty among professional advisors about the nature of the tasks undertaken.

May 9, 1967 Damages — Personal injuries — Quantum — Pension — Compulsory contribution — Police pension fund — Right to disability pension on discharge from police — Whether pension to be taken into account in claim for damages.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the development of the common law test for asserting criminal jurisdiction over financial crimes. Historically, the British courts at the turn of the twentieth century strongly advocated the territoriality principle to strictly limit the assumption of criminal jurisdiction to crimes which occurred entirely within the jurisdiction. With the rapid advance of telecommunications technologies during the latter half of the century, such a narrow approach to jurisdiction became unworkable, as the majority of financial crimes assumed multi‐jurisdictional aspects.

This paper traces the gradual liberalization of criminal jurisdiction over financial crime within the common law until the eventual emergence of the much more permissive comity theory of jurisdiction, which sanctions the assumption of criminal jurisdiction over any conduct which causes harmful consequences or effects in the territory of the country seeking to prosecute an accused.

While this is a welcome and necessary development in an age of global money laundering and organized crime, it is argued in this paper that unless a consistent and rational manner of prioritizing the claims of competing jurisdictions over the same criminal conduct is adopted, there is a risk that the first jurisdiction to be in a position to make an arrest may not necessarily be the correct or most appropriate one. As the double jeopardy principle operates to bar multiple prosecutions for the same criminal conduct, it is recommended that the doctrine of forum non conveniens, a familiar and developed concept in civil law, be applied to criminal prosecutions to maximize prosecutorial efficiency.

The paper is of value in discussing factors to be considered by law enforcement agencies in determining the most prudent sequence of legal proceedings that may be brought in different jurisdictions.

For one merit-based undergraduate scholarship program at Washington University in St. Louis (the University), discovery and dialogue have been essential to the program’s nearly 30-year existence. Named for Dr. John B. Ervin, the first African American Dean at Washington University in St. Louis, the John B. Ervin Scholars Program has attracted, recruited, retained, and graduated over 600 students deemed to exemplify extraordinary commitments to four pillars – scholarship, leadership, service, and diversity. Because the Program’s administrators have cultivated a community grounded in discovery and dialogue, the Ervin Scholars’ resolve to foster a more just and equitable society has deepened over time, perhaps preparing them for this time in which universities, this nation, and our world face crises over race. This resolve has manifested the last few years as Ervin Scholars have responded quickly to racial issues at Washington University in St. Louis and throughout the nation.

With its 30-year foundation, the John B. Ervin Scholars Program continues to develop, nurture, and support young people who advance discovery and dialogue. Drawing on a number of interviews, Program and University publications, and external publications, “A Legacy of Commitment,” the second installment of the Program’s history, demonstrates how the presence, contributions, and achievements of Ervin Scholars have changed Washington University in St. Louis. The Ervin Program has been an important part of the University’s efforts to be more diverse and inclusive, and it will continue to be integral to the University’s current and future plans.

Knight's Industrial Law Reports goes into a new style and format as Managerial Law This issue of KILR is restyled Managerial Law and it now appears on a continuous updating basis rather than as a monthly routine affair.