Pereira
Well-known member
What do you mean by "commonwealth law" in relation to the British judiciary?
California Case Update
- Thread starter Shamil
- Start date
- Status
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
The majority of commonwealth countries all have a near similar law structure, which differs from US law.
D.O.A.
Well-known member
you should google 'commonwealth' for a start if adding 'law' to it confuses you.
signed, Australia.
el canadiano
Active member
Ratified, Canada.
For those who don't know, Commonwealth in modern terms refer to a group of nations that are currently (or, for the most part, formerly of) British entities/colonies.
Anthony Parsons
Well-known member
Pereira
Well-known member
I understand what the commonwealth is. I'm referring specifically to the commonwealth legal system.
Apart from one or two, most states in the US also use the common law system. Foreign common law jurisdictions can create persuasive precedence and while not binding, it can be cited in an English court if it has some sort of correlation to the case.
English courts usually tend to prefer cited cases from places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland because their laws and application tend to be quite similar. When it comes to making case decisions, such cited cases may not even be mentioned or considered by judges because the primary law of the country will always be applied first.
Most of the commonwealth relies on the common law legal system. However this doesn't mean they all have the same sources and application of the law. English law (more specifically England and Wales) is separate even from the Scottish and Northern Irish legal systems and each jurisdiction is different. Common law also relies on past precedence.
Apart from one or two, most states in the US also use the common law system. Foreign common law jurisdictions can create persuasive precedence and while not binding, it can be cited in an English court if it has some sort of correlation to the case.
English courts usually tend to prefer cited cases from places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland because their laws and application tend to be quite similar. When it comes to making case decisions, such cited cases may not even be mentioned or considered by judges because the primary law of the country will always be applied first.
I've got a lot of respect for many of your posts in this thread, however, this is one so far off base in respect of the laws of England & Wales that I'm not even sure where to start.
The legal systems in England and the USA are both common law systems, and thus are nowhere near as far removed from each other as you suggest. The English legal system was exported in some form to nearly every country that the British Empire touched. Obviously, over time, they will diverge - and countries which became independent from Britain much longer ago will have diverged more than those who only got independence more recently. But the fact remains that the US still operates a variant of a common law system, and some could argue that your courts at a Federal level are actually MORE restricted in what they can do than a court in England.
Judges in England regularly interpret legislation. There are actually a range (and tiers) of methods used by judges to understand the will of parliament in passing that law. We also have the fun interaction of legislation and precedent from Europe (the EU and ECHR/ECtHR). The result of this situation is that court decisions often go against what parliament and the public would consider to be the 'right' situation.
The only point there I agree with is on juries - you are right that 99% of civil cases in England don't have a jury.
I will also say that "commonwealth law" isn't a term I've ever heard anyone use here in the UK (as a way to describe a collection of legal systems), and I'm almost certain you're referring to "common law systems".
Sorry, wrong again. In theory, to an extent yes. In practice, no. There are various ways to win in court without a strong legal foundation. You may also wish to look at the English concept of equity (I understand this also exists in the USA), which is all about bending the law when it's going to give the "wrong decision".
Wrong. They had to deposit that money because IB had no assets left in the UK - thus if XF won, they wouldn't be able to reclaim their costs. This is one of the great benefits of the UK system - if you sue someone and lose, you're nearly always going to end up paying for their legal costs.
Sorry, wrong again. While not as bad as the USA admittedly, we've got a horrible "compensation culture" here in the UK. Our government is currently legislating to reduce some of that (particularly around car accidents).
No, you wouldn't. It's quite common to try to enforce a judgement from a foreign country and court in a different jurisdiction (this is a perfect example with IB in the USA and XF in the UK). English courts are quite fond of their American counterparts. A law firm has helpfully provided a summary: http://www.taylorwessing.com/news-insights/details/enforcing-us-judgments-in-england-2010-07-12.html
Paul M
Well-known member
Based on the UK weather this summer so far, it will be rain.
Yes, lets not forget that anyone who likes or supports vB is automatically the enemy
......... god help anyone who works for them. 
.......... oh wait .....
Shelley
Well-known member
Based on the UK weather this summer so far, it will be rain.
Yes, lets not forget that anyone who likes or supports vB is automatically the enemy
.......... oh wait .....
Are you being sarcastic paul? #blondemoment *bends paul over and smacks his botty so hard with the infraction stick*
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Any chance we can keep this on topic since its been about the most useful thread on this entire site?
Shelley
Well-known member
As apposed to what? the majority of the thread consisting of wannabe lawyers. Sure, report the thread and request a takedown and I'll be sure not to forgot my wannabe lawyer handbook next time.
We don't really want this to be a "personal war". This is simply the IB staff going against Kier and Mike for their efforts of creating a new BB software. We can't hate the vB users/public. Most of them probably don't know what's going on. Of course, everyone, even some vB developers (since I kind of am one. 
) want to see xenForo win this "war" and succeed. ;D
I only develop themes for vB, but I do intend to support this remarkable xenForo software! I will get working on it asap, once I get a site revamp.
) want to see xenForo win this "war" and succeed. ;DI only develop themes for vB, but I do intend to support this remarkable xenForo software! I will get working on it asap, once I get a site revamp.
Paul M
Well-known member
Just who exactly are you referring to by "the IB staff" ?
The day to day staff involved in vBulletin are not going against anybody, they have no more say in this than anyone else.
As to winning "the war" - no matter what the outcome, the only real winners will be the lawers.
Adam Howard
Well-known member
Cal
Well-known member
Of course that's true Paul. If the day-to-day staff really had a beef with Xen then you wouldn't be here lol. It wouldn't be a smart career move to take sides with a software your co-workers are warring against. Most of us have realized all along that IB is almost a separate company when it comes to Vbulletin. A parent company kind of situation. You guys have no real say in IB affairs at all right?
Exactly what I was thinking -- in the odd (and quite miniscule in my opinion) chance that XF gets creamed in the trial & ceases to exist as a result, hacked copies of XF will be readily available. Potentially it could become the ultimate free BB platform.
However, I'm optimistic that XF & CAM will stick to their guns & prevail.
I'm sitting outside... and here's how it goes.
Not a cloud in the sky, got the sun in my eye and it won't be surprised if it's a dream.
- Status