High Court Of Justice Research Articles

Richard Arthern v. Ryanair

The slippery issue of what constitutes an ‘accident’ for purposes of the Montreal Convention has recently been addressed by Justice Farbey of London’s High Court of Justice in Richard Arthern v. Ryanair DAC [2023] EWHC 46 (KB).

On Romancing the Tomes: Popular Culture, Law and Feminism: A Public Conversation

ABSTRACT Emerita Professor Margaret Thornton's edited collection, Romancing the Tomes: Popular Culture, Law and Feminism was published in 2002, and grew out of the workshop Margaret organised under the auspices of the Humanities Research Centre at the Australian National University in 2000. In 2021 as part of the Institute of International Law and the Humanities (‘IILAH') Festival of Conversations Margaret spoke to Johanna Commins about the original workshop, the edited collection, and Margaret's reading of High Court Justice Ian Callinan’s first published novel, The Lawyer and the Libertine. The following edited conversation was held at Melbourne Law School in May 2023 and opened the workshop Romancing the Tomes 2.0: Feminism, Law and Popular Culture. It continued via email in early 2024.

Deep Learning-Based Semantic Segmentation for Legal Texts: Unveiling Rhetorical Roles in Legal Case Documents

The swift rise of digitization in legal documentation has opened doors for artificial intelligence to revolutionize various tasks within the legal domain. Among these tasks is the segmentation of legal documents using rhetorical labels. This process, known as rhetorical role labeling, involves assigning labels (such as Final Judgment, Argument, Fact, etc.) to sentences within a legal case document. This task can be down streamed to various major legal analytics problems such as summarization of legal documents, readability of lengthy case documents, document similarity estimation, etc. The mentioned task of semantic segmentation of documents via labels is challenging as the legal documents are lengthy, unstructured and the labels are subjective in nature. Various previous works on automatic rhetorical role labeling was carried out using methods like conditional random fields with handcrafted features, etc. This research focuses on analyzing case documents from two different legal systems: the High Court of Kerala and the High Court of Justice in the United Kingdom. Through rigorous experimentation with a range of deep learning models, this study highlights the robustness and efficacy of deep learning methods in accurately labeling rhetorical roles within legal texts. Additionally, comprehensive annotation of legal case documents from the UK and analysis of inter-annotator agreement are conducted. The overarching objective of this research is to design systems that facilitate a deeper comprehension of the organizational structure inherent in legal case documents.

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE INFLUENCE OF THE JURISPRUDENCE ON THE LAW NO. 31/1990 ON COMPANIES

In Romania, Law no. 31/1990 constitutes the key legislative framework for companies, which contains legal provisions regarding their establishment, organization, operation, dissolution. This law underwent multiple changes, which occurred either because of the activity of the ordinary or secondary legislator, or as a consequence of the pronouncement of some court decisions on the matter. After a general presentation of Law no. 31/1990, some decisions of the High Court of Cassation and Justice and of the Constitutional Court are commented, then, in detail, emphasizing their impact on the studied field. Through the prism of the aspects examined, we believe that the present study is of real use both to researchers in the field, to the legislator, and especially to the courts, which effectively interpret and apply the legal norms of Law no. 31/1990.

Israel – In Search of Constitutional Common Sense

The Israeli radical judicial overhaul program, aiming to seriously weaken the judiciary, has led the country to the brink of chaos and violence, with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators in the streets, society tearing itself apart and numerous sectors of society, such as medical service or reservists of IDF, announcing a suspension of their service to a nation they fear will no longer be a democracy. Despite the strong social protest, Knesset – representing an extremely right-wing coalition – adopted on the July 24, 2023 the amendment to Basic Law: The Judiciary to bar the judiciary from striking down decisions of the government and its ministers on the grounds of such decisions being unreasonable. The measure known as the reasonableness clause (standard) is rooted in English and American case law and it is frequently used in Israel to control administrative activity. It allows the courts to strike down governmental and administrative decisions and their regulations seen as having not taken into account all the relevant considerations of a particular issue, or not given the correct weight to those considerations – even if they do not violate any particular law or administrative rulings. The current right-wing coalition, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, argues that the clause as it stands gives too much power to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice, to interfere with the actions of the executive, and that the powers of judges, who are not elected by the public, remain out of control in this procedure. Opponents of the government’s amendment argue that this standard is crucial in helping to protect civil rights that are not fully defined in Israeli law. Eliminating the standard of reasonableness will be another step towards giving the government unlimited power. It violates not only the separation of powers principle and the rule of law but it also harms the right to good administration. Irrespective of the Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the government’s amendment, the struggle to maintain the democratic principles of the Israeli system will continue. Despite the strong social protest, Knesset – representing extremely right-wing coalition –adopted on the 24th of July 2023 the amendment to Basic Law: Judiciary to bar the judiciary from striking down decisions of the government and its ministers on the basis of being unreasonable. The measure known as the reasonableness clause (standard) is rooted in English and American case law bless and it is frequently used in Israel to control the administrative activity. It allows the courts to strike down governmental and administrative decisions and their regulations seen as having not taken into account all the relevant considerations of a particular issue, or not given the correct weight to those considerations – even if they do not violate and particular law or administrative rulings. The current right-wing coalition, led by Beniamin Netanyahu, argues that the clause as it stands gives too much scope to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court sitting as a High Court of Justice, to interfere with the actions of the executive, and that the powers of judges, who are not elected by the public, remain out of control in this procedure. Opponents to the government’s amendment argue that this standard is crucial in helping to protect civil rights that are not fully defined in Israeli law. Eliminating the standard of reasonableness will be another step towards giving the government unlimited power. It violates not only the separation of powers principle and rule of law but it also harms the right to good administration. Irrespectively of the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the government's amendment, the struggle to maintain the democratic principles of the Israeli system will continue.

Assessment of Records Management in High Court of Justice, Adamawa State

The paper is an assessment of records management in the High Court of Justice, Adamawa State. A Survey research method was used for the study. The population comprises 168 record managers in the High Court of Justice, Adamawa State. The data was analyzed using frequency, count, and percentages. The study reveals, among others, that the sources of records available are police reports and case files. The method used for preserving these records is by filing them in cabinets and on shelves, and the origins of records are police stations and case files. Based on the findings, it is recommended that there is a need for the High Court to digitize their records, that is, to convert the records to electronic form for easy processing and preservation of virtual access, among others.

Neurosurgery and litigation: An observational study of liability for damages in public neurosurgical practice in Spain

Background and objectiveNeurosurgery has been internationally considered a “high risk” specialty for lawsuits. The aim of this observational study was to analyse the characteristics of medical liability judgements in Spain for damages caused by the practice of neurosurgery in Spanish public healthcare. Materials and methodsCross-sectional observational study analysing the rulings handed down in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction by the High Courts of Justice in the period 2008–2020, in the specialty of neurosurgery. The variables were administrative, clinical, judicial, and compensatory. ResultsA total of 1015 rullings were analysed, of which 38 (3.74%) were related to neurosurgery. A total of 51.85% of the judgements were dismissed at first instance and 88.88% at second instance. The most frequent reason in the judgements upholding the compensation requested by the patients was lack of information: 8 (53.33%). The most frequently claimed damage was sequelae: 31 (81.57%). The medical activity most related to the claims was spinal surgery: 23 (60.52%). The median award was 40 000 euros, with a range of 5000–78 285 euros. ConclusionsIn the Spanish public health system, the specialty of neurosurgery is not among the most demanded. Most of the rullings (60%) reject the compensation requested and, therefore, are favourable to the health services. In the case of an upheld decision, lack of information is the most frequent reason for breach of the lex artis. These data contribute to improving the knowledge of professionals in the medical-legal aspects of healthcare and invite the formulation of further studies contrasting the Spanish data with those of other countries.

Squaring the circle: Settler colonialism, the international law of occupation and the separation barrier

The Israeli High Court of Justice (HCJ) is highly invested in maintaining a façade of adherence to International Law (IL) in Israel's continuous occupation of the West Bank, and in mitigating the contradictions and complexities in Israel's implementation of this law. Our paper proposes a unique legal-geographical perspective to the analysis of this dynamic, while anchoring the critique of the HCJ's work within an understanding of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank as a settler colonial project. Empirically, we focus on the Court's evolving jurisprudence in relation to the inclusion of expansion plans for the Jewish settlements in the routing of the separation barrier. Through a close reading of the legal texts, we demonstrate how the Court strove to subject the settler colonial logic of permanent spatial transformation and settlement expansion into the IL's imperatives of temporality and conservation. Through this case-study we propose a nuanced empirical and methodological approach to the study of contemporary settler colonial legalities. This approach focuses on the intertwinement of everyday professional practices of space and law in order to unravel the weaving of settler colonial logics into contemporary imperatives.

Neurocirugía y judicialización: estudio observacional de la responsabilidad por daños provocados en la práctica neuroquirúrgica pública en España

Background and objectiveNeurosurgery has been internationally considered a "high risk" specialty for lawsuits. The aim of this observational study was to analyze the characteristics of medical liability rulings in Spain for damages caused by the practice of neurosurgery in Spanish public health care. Materials and methodsCross-sectional observational study analyzing the rulings handed down in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction by the High Courts of Justice in the period 2008-2020, in the specialty of neurosurgery. The variables were administrative, clinical, judicial, and compensatory. ResultsA total of 1,015 rulings were analyzed, of which 38 (3.74%) were related to neurosurgery. A total of 51.85 % of the judgments were dismissed at first instance and 88.88% at second instance. The most frequent reason in the rulings upholding the compensation requested by the patients was lack of information: 8 (53.33%). The most frequently claimed damage was sequelae: 31 (81.57%). The medical activity most related to the claims was spinal surgery: 23 (60.52%). The median award was 40,000 euros, with a range of 5,000-78,285 euros. ConclusionsIn the Spanish public health system, the specialty of neurosurgery is not among the most demanded. Most of the rullings (60%) reject the compensation requested and, therefore, are favorable to the health services. In the case of an upheld decision, lack of information is the most frequent reason for breach of the lex artis. These data contribute to improving the knowledge of professionals in the medical-legal aspects of health care and invite the formulation of further studies contrasting the Spanish data with those of other countries.

The switch: The Israel High Court of Justice’s transition from occupation law to human rights law

Abstract It has been suggested that the jurisprudence of the High Court of Justice (HCJ) relating to the territories occupied by Israeli in 1967 had effectively legitimized the occupation. Recent decisions by the HCJ suggest, however, that the legal paradigm it applies has shifted from Israeli administrative law to Israeli constitutional law, and from the international law of belligerent occupation to domestic human rights law. The Silwad judgment—a landmark decision from June 2020 in which the HCJ struck down the Regularization Law of 2017—illustrates this switch. Furthermore, it reflects the challenge confronting the HCJ when striving to facilitate structural change in the situation in the occupied territories. Contrary to some of the literature which criticized the switch to human rights norms for diluting the rights of Palestinians residing in the occupied territories, we submit that it potentially constitutes an important step in the direction of confronting the systematic discrimination of Palestinians which that belligerent occupation law paradigm failed to prevent.

In the shadow of settlement – the Israeli Progressive Scholars’ critical analyses of the decision-making policies of the Israeli Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice

This article, drawing heavily on Kretzmer’s and Ronen’s newly edited and expanded book, analyses the approaches of the Israeli Supreme Court (SC) to petitions relating to the occupied Palestinian territories. Its purpose is to examine how the SC’s judicial policies can be considered to cohere with the demands of international humanitarian law (IHL) of occupation and those of international human rights law (IHRL). After dwelling on some interpretive issues relating to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations, this article classifies three salient patterns of the SC’s judicial policies: (1) the SC’s approach of applying very controversial interpretations in some areas; (2) its judicial policy based on the mixture of restrictive interpretations and some liberal tendencies in other areas; and (3) its willingness to develop in yet other areas some pioneeringly progressive jurisprudence, which can provide lessons even for the monitoring bodies of IHRL. This article shows that as with Kretzmer and Ronen, the SC’s controversially deferential stance tends to be discernible whenever issues touch on the right-wing Israeli government’s policies of settlement in the occupied Palestinian territories and on the rights of Israeli settlers in those territories. These issues provide the invisible barriers to any progressive potentials of the SC’s judicial policies.

Litigation in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery: A cross-sectional observational study of liability in the Spanish public healthcare system

IntroductionThe overestimation by physicians of the risk of a lawsuit has, among other consequences, the stepped-up of defensive medicine. To analyse the characteristics of medical liability rulings in Spain in public health care in the specialties of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. Materials and methodsCross-sectional observational study analysing the rulings handed down in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction by the High Courts of Justice in the period 2008–2020, in the specialties of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. The variables were administrative, clinical, judicial, and compensatory. ResultsA total of 1015 rulings were analysed; 47 (4.63%) involved to the specialties of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. Both obtained similar frequency percentages, cardiology 22 (2.2%) and cardiovascular surgery 25 (2.5%). A total of 74.1% of the rulings were dismissed in the first instance and 75% in the second instance. The 2 grounds for finding against the defendent were loss of chance 6 (42.85%) and diagnostic and/or therapeutic malpractice 5 (35.71%). Damages were usually claimed: death 21 (44.68%) and sequelae 26 (55.32%). The median award was 30 000 euros. ConclusionsThe low frequency of claims in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery indicates that these are "low risk" specialties for litigation. The vast majority of the rulings are, moreover, dismissive of the patients' claims. The data help to structure the role of lawsuits and to increase professionals' knowledge of the medical–legal dimension of health care.

The Kirby Institute—ending HIV transmission in Australia

Australia has consistently seen lower rates of HIV infection and mortality than most countries in the world, and in no small part is that due to the work of the Kirby Institute, part of The University of New South Wales, Australia. For 25 years, from 1986 to 2011, the Institute was known as the National Centre in HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research, before being renamed after retired Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby, a champion of health and human rights and the HIV response.

Judicialización en cardiología y cirugía cardiovascular: estudio observacional transversal en materia de responsabilidad patrimonial en la sanidad pública española

Introduction: The overestimation by physicians of the risk of a lawsuit has, among other consequences, the stepped-up of defensive medicine. To analyze the characteristics of medical liability rulings in Spain in public health care in the specialties of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery.Materials and methods: Cross-sectional observational study analyzing the rulings handed down in the contentious-administrative jurisdiction by the High Courts of Justice in the period 2008-2020, in the specialties of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. The variables were administrative, clinical, judicial, and compensatory.Results: A total of 1015 rulings were analyzed; 47 (4.63%) involved to the specialties of cardiology and cardiovascular surgery. Both obtained similar frequency percentages, cardiology 22 (2.2%) and cardiovascular surgery 25 (2.5 %). A total of 74.1 % of the rulings were dismissed in the first instance and 75% in the second instance. The two grounds for finding against the defendent were loss of chance 6 (42.85%) and diagnostic and/or therapeutic malpractice 5 (35.71%). Damages were usually claimed: death 21 (44.68%) and sequelae 26 (55.32%). The median award was 30,000 euros.Conclusions: The low frequency of claims in cardiology and cardiovascular surgery indicates that these are “low risk” specialties for litigation. The vast majority of the rulings are, moreover, dismissive of the patients' claims. The data help to structure the role of lawsuits and to increase professionals' knowledge of the medical-legal dimension of health care.

Comment on Michael Kirby, 'India & Australia: A Neglected Legal Relationship and a Plan for Action'

Has much changed more than two decades after former Australian High Court Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG proposed his nine-point plan of action to solidify the legal relationship between India and Australia? This piece traces the evolution of that relationship from the time Kirby first envisioned a mutually beneficial legal partnership to the transformed landscape of the present day. After placing Kirby at the centre of initial efforts to reinvigorate the 'neglected relationship', this piece offers a structured explanation of how the association between India and Australia has progressed over the years. It presents a picture of how contemporary global politics, trade-driven cooperation and the emergence of parochial nationalism has impacted the course of interactions between the two countries. It concludes by re-emphasising Kirby's call for closer interaction between India and Australia, and the importance of intercultural learning in building a truly cooperative global community.

29 High Court of Justice – Queen’s Bench Division: R (on the application of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain) v. (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and (2) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 13 November 2020

29 High Court of Justice – Queen’s Bench Division: R (on the application of the Independent Workers’ Union of Great Britain) v. (1) Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and (2) The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, 13 November 2020

Beyond Consensus: Gender, Chief Justices, and Leadership on State Supreme Courts

ABSTRACT Previous research on differences in male and female leadership attribute consensus formation to female leadership styles. However, I argue that consensus in the context of chief justice leadership is more akin to male forms of leadership. Proceeding from Meier and O’Toole’s theory of public management, I argue in this article that female chief justices should value consensus less than other duties and responsibilities. I test hypotheses using a survey of current and former state high court justices. The results show that female justices greatly devalue consensus and are more likely to place importance on interactions with state legislatures.

Hidden depths: diversity, difference and the High Court of Australia

AbstractThere is a growing international emphasis on the importance of diversity in the judiciary and the impact of the individual in decision-making. However, it can be a challenge to gain insight into the individuals who sit on the bench. For instance, there is limited official information about the individuals who sit on the High Court of Australia. One of the rare glimpses provided by the justices themselves is their judicial swearing-in speech. Drawing on a case-study of the swearing-in speeches of High Court justices sitting between 2008 and 2016, this paper illustrates how these speeches can illuminate key demographic information about the judiciary, as well as facets of the individual rarely explored in studies of judicial diversity: personality and values. This study demonstrates how swearing-in speeches can assist with filling information gaps about judicial diversity, and so extend debates about judicial selection.

Rouba Al-Salem, “Security, Rights and Law: The Israeli High Court of Justice and Israeli Settlements in the Occupied West Bank”

Rouba Al-Salem, “Security, Rights and Law: The Israeli High Court of Justice and Israeli Settlements in the Occupied West Bank”

Uganda’s decision ‘In the Matter of an Arrest Warrant and the Surrender to the International Criminal Court (ICC) of Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir’: Explanation, issues and consequences

On 19 December 2019, High Court Justice Peter Adonyo issued a warrant of arrest for former Sudan President Omar al-Bashir should he ever set foot in Uganda or in a territory controlled by Uganda. He also held that by failing to arrest and surrender al-Bashir on two occasions in 2016 and 2017, in fulfilment of the warrants of arrest issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2009 and 2010, Uganda had breached its own International Criminal Court Act (2010), the Rome Statute (1998) and United Nations Security Council Resolution 1593 (2005). This contribution discusses the judgment by considering the context of Uganda’s failure to meet its legal obligations with regard to the ICC’s arrest warrants against al-Bashir. It then discusses the future of Uganda’s arrest warrant against al-Bashir, and the court’s clarification of the superiority of United Nations (UN) decisions over those of the African Union (AU).