Explanation:
Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court have the power to grant permission to appeal. In the Court of Appeal, permission to appeal may be granted by the court itself or by a single judge. In the Supreme Court, permission to appeal is typically granted by the court itself, although in some cases it may be granted by a single justice. The House of Lords is no longer the highest court in the UK; it was replaced by the Supreme Court in 2009. Therefore, options C and E are incorrect.
Explanation:
A public nuisance is a tort that involves unlawful interference with the rights of the public. In this scenario, the man's operation of the farmers market on his small farm results in the village becoming very busy on Thursdays, obstructing roads and affecting the businesses in the village, including the woman's business. This interference with the rights of the public constitutes a public nuisance. Therefore, the woman should pursue a cause of action in tort for public nuisance against the man running the farmers market.
Explanation:
Under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, a product is considered defective if it does not provide the level of safety that persons are generally entitled to expect. In this scenario, the mountain bike's handlebar snapped due to metal corrosion in some screws, resulting in the man breaking both wrists. This indicates a defect in the product's design or manufacture, as it failed to meet the safety expectations of users. Therefore, the man can potentially recover damages for his injuries under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 because the bike is defective.
Explanation:
The golden rule is a method of statutory interpretation used when applying the literal rule would result in an absurd outcome. Under the golden rule, the judge interprets the words of the statute in a manner that avoids absurdity while still adhering as closely as possible to the ordinary meaning of the words. Therefore, in this scenario, the judge has applied the golden rule by interpreting the statute in a way that does not lead to an absurd outcome.
Explanation:
Under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), legal proceedings can typically only be brought by individuals who are directly affected or victimized by an alleged infringement of their human rights. In this case, the cousin, who is not personally affected by the infringement, cannot bring legal proceedings on behalf of the woman. The principle of locus standi requires that the individual bringing the action has a personal stake in the matter. Therefore, the cousin does not have standing to bring legal proceedings under the HRA on behalf of the woman.
Explanation:
In civil cases, such as a claim for breach of contract, the burden of proof typically rests with the party making the allegation. In this scenario, the claimant alleges that there was an oral amendment to the contract. Therefore, it is the claimant's responsibility to prove this allegation to the satisfaction of the court. The standard of proof required is on the balance of probabilities, meaning the claimant must establish that it is more likely than not that the oral amendment occurred.
Explanation:
In situations where there is a risk of serious disorder, the Chief Constable has the authority to impose conditions on public gatherings or meetings to maintain public order and safety. These conditions may include restrictions on the time, location, or conduct of the meeting. Therefore, option A best describes the powers of the police in this situation, as it acknowledges the Chief Constable's authority to impose conditions to prevent serious disorder.
Explanation:
In a claim for breach of contract, the measure of damages most likely to be awarded by the court is the cost of cure. This refers to the amount required to rectify or remedy the breach of contract, such as replacing the incorrectly designed tiles with the correct ones depicting the Greek flag. The cost of cure aims to put the innocent party in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed correctly. Therefore, in this scenario, the court is likely to award damages equivalent to the cost of replacing the tiles with the correct design.
Explanation:
In this case, the woman promised to pay £25 in exchange for the bicycle. Consideration is an essential element of a contract, and it involves something of value exchanged between parties. Here, the promise to pay £25 constitutes sufficient consideration, which is necessary for the formation of a contract. Even though payment has not been made yet, the promise of consideration is enough to create a binding contract between the man and the woman.
Explanation:
When a private limited company adopts amended articles of association, the shareholders' resolution approving the adoption of the new articles is a crucial document to be filed with the Registrar of Companies. Additionally, the new articles themselves must be submitted to the Registrar. Therefore, option D is correct as it includes both the shareholders' resolution and the new articles, which are essential documents for filing with the Registrar.
Explanation:
In the absence of a formal written partnership agreement or registration as a partnership, individuals can still be considered partners if they are working together in a business venture with the intention of making a profit. In this scenario, the three clients invested equal amounts of capital in the business and agreed to share profits equally, indicating their intent to operate as partners. Therefore, despite incurring losses, they are still considered to be working in partnership together.