The outbreak of COVID-19 (also known as the novel coronavirus disease) has led to the initiation of several disputes. While some of these relate to the non-performance of contracts, others concern the damages arising from the injuries caused by coming into contact with the virus. Considering the nature of the pandemic, a plethora of disputes arising from tortious liability for the injuries caused are likely to involve a foreign element—when it results in injuries in some form to persons by the violation of quarantine rules by foreigners or the failure to impose a lockdown to curb the outbreak. For instance, in the United States [US], a group of individuals and business owners have reportedly initiated proceedings against the Chinese government for failing to prevent the disease from spreading. Likewise, tourists from several countries such as the Netherlands, Germany and the United Kingdom have initiated mass litigation against the Austrian Federal State of Tyrol and tourist businesses such as sports resorts, bars and restaurants for continuing the to operate in the State despite being designated as a high-risk zone. International disputes such as these chiefly involve the identification of the law that will govern the claim to decide the rights and liabilities of the parties. Unlike in the case of contractual claims, the determination of the applicable law is more arduous in the case of torts for the reason that the parties rarely, if ever, know each other and do not expect any particular person to injure them by the harmful behaviour. That said, several countries across the globe have made remarkable progress over the years in developing a framework to identify the governing law to adjudicate cross-border disputes on torts. The European Union [EU], the UK, China, Russia, Australia and Canada are some examples. In contrast, India continues to adhere to the century-old mechanism developed under the English common law which has mostly been replaced in the UK itself. In the absence of any black-letter law on the subject, the development of the method to identify the applicable law in matters of tort has depended on the courts. The Indian courts, however, lack experience in handling international disputes on tort. As a result, there is no conclusive and coherent mechanism to identify the governing law in such matters in India. The paper demonstrates how the rules to determine the applicable law in the present form in India will severely debilitate access to justice and increase transactional costs in obtaining legal information. In particular, it highlights the plethora of problems that are likely to arise in adjudicating disputes concerning the COVID-19 pandemic. In this respect, the author provides some suggestions that the lawmakers may consider while reformulating the mechanism to identify the applicable law in matters of tort and, in particular, while adjudicating disputes relating to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Diaries always make for a fascinating read; and Gregory Tardi’s Anatomy of an Election is no exception. Subtitled Canada’s Federal General Election of 2019 Through the Lens of Political Law, the bo...
As emoji 1 become more commonplace in courtroom proceedings, a question arises: what role do emoji play in social media messaging? The author draws a comparison between oral communication and social media messages and concludes lawyers have been too quick to treat text and emoji as a bundle when they should be adopting a piecemeal approach. While emoji may add context and clarity to social media messages that might otherwise appear ambiguous; emoji interpretation is far from an exact science. By exploring linguistic, gesture, and non-verbal communication theory, the author intends to discuss the tension that exists when it comes to deciphering the meaning of online communications – that include emoji – in court proceedings. While there is a tendency to conflate emoji with text in linguistic and non-verbal communication theory, a proper evidentiary analysis requires a piecemeal approach. To permeate these dynamics, the author has researched Canadian, U.K, Australian, and New Zealand case law over the period 2015 to 2020 where emoji were referenced in court decisions. The paper focuses on the treatment of emoji by the courts in these cases. Finally, the paper reviews the relevant legal issues and concludes with a consideration of whether the existing laws relating to electronic documents ought to be reformed to accommodate the admissibility of emoji messages in court proceedings.
The paper highlights the menace of building collapse incidences in Nigeria, the causes and the need to enforce laws to reduce these. It examines the postulations of scholars; applicable laws such as nigerian urban and regional planning act 1992 (NURPA); urban and regional planning and development law of Lagos state 2010 (URPDL) and the effectiveness of regulatory bodies such as town planners registration council (TOPREC) among others in curbing these incidences. Enabling planning laws in Japan is discussed. The paper concludes that the law is adequate in Nigeria but there is the need to enforce the provisions of these laws.
In Benjamin v Kalio, a full court of seven Justices of the Supreme Court reversed earlier decisions on admissibility of unregistered land instruments in Nigeria. Applying constitutional provisions, Benjamin’s case established that such documents are admissible under the Evidence Act which exclusively regulates admissibility of evidence in Nigeria. However, in Abdullahi v Adetutu, a regular court of five Justices simply restated the old rule without making reference to the Constitution, Evidence Act, or Benjamin’s case which has not been upturned by the court. Following the principle of judicial precedent, it appears that the procedure adopted in Abdullahi’s case was erroneous.
