Law - Critique
View Edited | View Unedited | Back To Main Table
Case analysis of: Empress Car Ltd Car Company (Abertillery) Ltd. v. National Rivers Authority
This assignment provides a thorough analysis of the case's facts, the interpretative problems, and the arguments. During my editing, I focused on eliminating confusing and extraneous language and replacing awkwardly worded phrases with clearer, more concise sentences. As a result, the assignment's readability has been greatly improved; the case analysis now contains a variety of sentence structures and clear wording, enhancing the flow of the entire work.
The revised assignment is free of the grammatical errors and awkward language that plagued the original. I sometimes had to cut overly long sentences into more manageable pieces for the sake of clarity. The revised version keeps your information intact while making it much easier to read. Below I have provided examples of my editing and suggestions for improvement.
The original had capitalisation errors, incorrect uses of commas, and vague language. For an example of the last error, take a look at the first question of the prosecution's case: "Did the defendant do something"? "Do something" is too vague for an academic assignment; you must be more specific. I reworded this phrase to render it more suitable.
Look at the following passage: "In analysis of S.85 of the Water Resources Act 1991, Lord Hoffman identifies the notion of "causing" should be present in both the points above by stating that " ..the notion of causing is present in both limbs.." E.g. what was done caused the pollution and what was not done caused the pollution.
The "E.g." is improperly added to the end of this passage and the entire phrase following it is unclear. This passage is repetitive because you state Lord Hoffman's intentions twice and you don't include a quotation that clearly explains your meaning. Is there a way for you to more precisely explain what you mean by "present in both limbs"?
Statutory Interpretation
Your discussion of the statutory interpretation was thorough but sometimes contained confusing wording that obscured your meaning. For example, you include the following sentence:
"Lord Hoffman analysed this approach with the intention of the legislative to be collected from the statue, identifying situations where this would lead to an absurd outcome, as the interpretation of the word "cause" is dependent on a number of case facts".
The above sentence contains so many clauses that it's hard to understand. You also include vague language such as "this would lead" - what would lead? I focused on eliminating the wordiness and improving clarity. The revised version is as follows:
"Lord Hoffman analysed this approach, intending that the legislative aim collected from the statue and that situations be identified in which a common sense wording would lead to an absurd outcome".
The ratio decidendi
This section contained awkward sentence constructions such as the following: "The deciding factor was the question of: had an act been committed and did such an act contribute foreseeable to the escape of pollution? - precautions were not taken to guard against foreseeable events such as vandalism".
In the above, there is a question mark followed by a dash. The sentence "precautions were not taken" must clearly show that Empress Car Ltd. is the subject of this sentence.
The Impress decision
There are several overly long, confusing sentences in this paragraph such as:
"The reasons Lord Hoffman gives for the view that the divisional court wrongly allowed the appeal and that the magistrate correctly convicted in Impress Ltd V Rees is that a deliberate act of a third party caused the pollution does not in itself mean that the defendant's creation of a situation in which the third party could so act did not also cause the pollution for the purposes of S.85 of the Water Resources Act 1991".
There is a clearer way of saying this, eliminating unnecessary phrases such as "The reasons…" and "does not in itself mean." The revised version is divided into smaller pieces, with improved sentence structures, greatly aiding clarity:
"Lord Hoffman argues that the divisional court wrongly allowed the appeal and that the magistrate correctly convicted in Impress Ltd V Rees for the following reasons: even if a third party causes the pollution, the defendant cannot be cleared of the same charge of pollution found in S.85 of the Water Resources Act 1991. By creating a situation in which the third party could so act, the defendant is held liable for the pollution".
For further improvement, you could clarify the "Legal Issues" paragraph-what exactly was the prosecution seeking to prove? Which interpretation were they following to determine the meaning of "cause"?
Overall, the revised assignment is much clearer and easier to read. Confusing, awkward sentences have been replaced with more precise, well-structured sentences. The assignment is a cogent presentation of a legal case.
