This HR area has 12 assignment topics and ideas on
tort, intellectual property and media HR. Please use this material to help you
in your HR studies and to help craft your very own assignment topic.
1. Should the HR of
Negligence apply to Personal injury Claims or should a No-Fault System be
implemented into English HR?
This assignment topic will explore the no-fault
system of New Zealand, the hybrid system of Australia and the fault based model
of English HR to consider which the correct approach to take is. The benefit of
the no-fault model is that it removes a lot of the barriers and access to
restitution for victims. On the other hand, it may create a compensation
culture, which the conservatism of the English judiciary under negligence HR
has traditionally aimed to prevent. Therefore, the synthesis of English case HR
will be considered to see if the traditional fault based approach should
remain, or whether the no-fault system should be implemented into English HR.
2. Should there be a
Reform of English Tort HR with regards to Psychological Shock?
The HR associated with psychological shock has beena significant barrier to claims in negligence HR, because it has always been
identified as a secondary harm in English HR (Alcock v Chief Constable of South
Yorkshire Police [1992] 1 AC 310). The Australian system has codified its
approach to psychological shock, in order to allow greater flexibility and
ability to take a claim when there is no “physical harm”. Therefore, the
following topic will compare the Australian and English approaches, in order to
determine if the English tort of negligence associated with psychological shock
should be reformed.
3. Is the treatment
of Economic Loss fit for purpose in 21st Century Tort HR?
The prima facie rule in the English tort of
negligence is that there is no claim for pure economic loss (Spartan Steel
& Alloys Ltd v Martin & Co (Contractors) Ltd [1973] 1 QB 27). The
Spartan Steel Case based its rationale on the “floodgates” argument; whereby it
is not in the interest of public policy to allow such claims, as it may create
a compensation culture and “clog” the courts. The exception to this is pure
economic loss that is related to professional statements (Hedley Byrne v Heller
(1964) AC 465), which has also allowed for a legitimate claim by disappointed
customers and associates (White v Jones; Gorham v BT and others [2000] 4 All ER
867). Therefore, this assignment will consider if the HR on pure economic loss
should be reconsidered.
4. Should there be
special Samaritan Protections implemented in English Tort HR, which will allow
a more comprehensive application of the neighbour principle?
This assignment topic will explore the rationale for
English negligence HR not implementing a “Good Samaritan” HR, which has
resulted in “rescuers” being liable for negligent actions (even if there is
good intent). In contrast the USA and Canada have implemented the French “Good
Samaritan” HRs, which under public policy exempt a rescuer from liability.
Thus, the following examination will start from the French foundations of the
“Good Samaritan” HR, which will then explore why some states have implemented
this model and others have not. This discussion will then culminate in a
consideration of whether a “Good Samaritan” HR should be implemented into
English negligence HR.
5. Is the current HR
of copyright impeding the free movement of knowledge and information across
Cyberspace?
This assignment topic will explore the concept of
“open-source” information, which is “free access” knowledge to all users. The
problem with open-source knowledge is that it can be modified with a small
element of “creative skill” to become copyrighted. Thus, this raises the
question whether it is “moral” for “open-source” materials to be copyrightable
in the future. In order to understand the nature of this new area of HR the
discussion will undertake a comparative review of copyright HRs, which will
include International Conventions, English, US and Australian HRs.
6. Are the moral
exceptions in English and EU Patent HR Limiting the Advancement of Scientific
Knowledge?
Moral exceptions can be seen as an impediment to
innovation in medical inventions, especially in controversial subject areas
(e.g. the human genome). The basis of this debate is over the sanctity of life;
whereby the belief is scientists reconstructing DNA and cloning stem cells is
“playing God”. The nature of s. 1(3) of the Patents Act 1977 allows a broad
discretion to refuse patentability based on moral grounds. This means that
there are no limits to the public policy or morality grounds, which results in
the use of legal provisions to impose a ban on certain types of inventions.
There may be strong arguments that some inventions and experiments are not in
the public interest; however the question that This assignment topic will
explore is whether Intellectual Property HR is the correct place for this
debate?
7. Should the
Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Claim Interpretation become the International
Norm?
The European Patent Convention 2000 (EPC) was
reformed in 2007 with the addition of a new Protocol. Article 2 of the Protocol
revised Article 69, which aims to harmonise patent claim interpretation. An
important element of Article 2 is that it requires the doctrine of equivalents
to be implemented, which does not marry with the English Catnic (Catnic
Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1982] R.P.D. & T.M. 183
(H.L.))/Improver (Improver Corp v Remington Consumer Products Ltd [1990] FSR
181) test. Thus, this discussion will explore the “doctrine of equivalents”,
which stems from German HR; as well as being implemented in the US model. It
will then consider to what extent the English approach marries with this
doctrine and what measures have to be undertaken to ensure that there is
compliance with the revised Article 2 of the EPC.
8. Is TRIPS fir for
purpose when it limits the access to life saving medicine and technologies in
the Developing World? An Examination of Articles 27, 30, 31 and 40 of TRIPS:
This discussion will explore whether the current
TRIPS model creates “fairness” between developed and developing countries. The
focus will be on the compulsory licensing system, which allows for developing
states to breach patents in cases of national emergency for public use (e.g.
the HIV crisis). This question will explore the moral implications of the TRIPS
system and considers if medical patents should be allowed, especially if it
prices life-saving medicine out of the reach of the poor. It will then consider
the development of the Bolar Exception (Roche Products v Bolar Pharmaceutical
(1984) 733 F.2d 858 (Fed. Cir)), which has been affirmed at an international
level to allow states to “copy” patented medications for research and
development purposes (Canada: Patent protection of pharmaceutical products
(Case No WT/DS114/R)). Therefore, the following examination will consider if
the Bolar Exception provides a better balance between providing essential
medication and economic rights than the TRIPS system.
9. Should Intangible
Property, such as Personality Rights and Virtual property, remain in the realm
of IP HR or should they also be afforded with in rem rights?
This discussion will explore whether the US and
Canadian model of personality rights should be implemented into English HR. The
case of Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 QB has
developed the concept of privacy in English HR, which is based on the integrity
of an individual's personal space. This raises the question whether there can
be personality rights derived under English HR, with reference to their
development in the USA and Canada.
10. To what extent
should morality clauses be used in Entertainment and Media contracts to protect
the Celebrity and the Media Company?
The use of morality clauses in US celebrity contracts
date back to the Hollywood cases of the Mid-20th Century (Loew's, Inc. v. Cole
185 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1950); Twentieth Century-Fo x Film Corp. v. Lardner 216
F.2d 844 (9th Cir. 1954); Scott v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc 240 F.2d 87 (9th
Cir. 1957)). The development of these clauses has centred on protecting the
reputation of the company, sport's team the celebrity played for. Thus, in the
wake of the “bad publicity” in the Premier League, due to racist and violent
acts of footballers, the following assignment will consider if such clauses are
enforceable in English HR. The main obstacle is that these clauses are based on
personality rights, which do not exist in English HR; therefore, there will
have to be a consideration of these intangible rights.
11. Has the
so-called tort of the misuse of private information created a right to privacy?
The tort of misuse of private information was first
introduced in the case of Campbell (Appellant) v MGN Ltd. (Respondent) [2004]
UKHL 22, which identified that there has to be a balance between the use of
private information and public interest. The Max Mosley v News Group Newspapers
Ltd [2008] EWHC 1777 QB Case identified that there are certain concerns that
are wholly in the private sphere (i.e. private sexual acts). These cases have
not created a “privacy right”; rather the tort of misuse of private information
was coined. The problem is the boundaries between private rights and freedom of
the press have not been properly delineated. Thus, This assignment topic will
consider if a privacy HR is necessary in the 21st Century.
12. Is the HR of
Defamation effectively protecting the media's role as the Public Watchdog?
This assignment topic will explore whether English HR
is effectively protecting a free press in the case of potential defamation.
This discussion will explore the Reynolds's Public Interest Defence (as
affirmed in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe [2006] UKHL 44). The question
that will be raised is whether this defence meets the requirements of Article
10 of the ECHR by exploring the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human
Rights and English courts. It will then consider the US approach, which ensures
that there is a substantive protection of the freedom of the press. Finally, a
set of recommendations will be developed in order to support reform of English
defamation HR.
No comments:
Post a Comment