Private Flying Renumeration?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CYPRUS
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Private Flying Renumeration?
Under JAA-FCL PPL(A) rules can anyone tell me what a defintion of renumeration means. Specifically, in LASORs Sect A Appendix F, P63 it states, '...... are to act, but not for renumeration, as pilot in command.'
I expect this has been answered many times before, as I am new to PPrune grateful for any definition. Eg friends have stated that a PPL (A) can fly passengers and split the cost evenly amongst ALL those onboard including PIC - is this correct? Ie if I am PIC with 3 POB and having obtained agreement! I pay 33 percent.
Many thanks for helpful responses.
I expect this has been answered many times before, as I am new to PPrune grateful for any definition. Eg friends have stated that a PPL (A) can fly passengers and split the cost evenly amongst ALL those onboard including PIC - is this correct? Ie if I am PIC with 3 POB and having obtained agreement! I pay 33 percent.
Many thanks for helpful responses.
Yes - that's as I see it. But you cannot advertise such flights generally; perhaps a note on the clubroom noticeboard stating "Anyone interested in flying to XXXX and sharing costs" would be OK - but "**** Planes fly you where you want to go. Contact nnn nnnnn for more info" wouldn't.
In the UK there is a very thin line between cost sharing and illegal public transport or illegal aerial work. The CAA are happy with cost sharing intelligently applied - but rightly very harsh on illegal public transport!
In the UK there is a very thin line between cost sharing and illegal public transport or illegal aerial work. The CAA are happy with cost sharing intelligently applied - but rightly very harsh on illegal public transport!
The ANO's Article 130 is the definitive text on this.
Generally speaking, a private flight is one for which no valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that just you, the pilot, can't take remuneration. No one can.
There are a number of permitted exceptions to this:
1) Hiring an aircraft: while the aircraft must be on a PT C of A, the flight is classed as private for other purposes.
2) Reimbursement of costs for flying displays, races
3) Charity flights with the permission of the CAA (general permission is laid out in an AIC)
4) Cost sharing when no more than 4 people are carried and the flight is not advertised outside a flying club [Note also that the pilot may not be employed as pilot by the aircraft operator -- you can't cost share if a club instructor is the pilot.]
5) Reimbursement of direct costs by employers of the pilot
6) Contributions by co-owners to group funds
For details, see the ANO (CAP393).
Generally speaking, a private flight is one for which no valuable consideration is given or promised in respect of the flight. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that just you, the pilot, can't take remuneration. No one can.
There are a number of permitted exceptions to this:
1) Hiring an aircraft: while the aircraft must be on a PT C of A, the flight is classed as private for other purposes.
2) Reimbursement of costs for flying displays, races
3) Charity flights with the permission of the CAA (general permission is laid out in an AIC)
4) Cost sharing when no more than 4 people are carried and the flight is not advertised outside a flying club [Note also that the pilot may not be employed as pilot by the aircraft operator -- you can't cost share if a club instructor is the pilot.]
5) Reimbursement of direct costs by employers of the pilot
6) Contributions by co-owners to group funds
For details, see the ANO (CAP393).
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: CYPRUS
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
private pilot renumeration
BEagle and Bookworm. Many thanks for yr replies. Bookworm please assist further if poss. I have been through CAP393 (a rather large document and cannot find the sections containing similar text to yr message. Can you give me a section number?
I have found Schedule 8 Sect 1 and 2 but this more or less repeats what is in LASORs - any gen on percentage sharing or advertising criteria - in writing - as mentioned by BEagle gratefully received. Thank you for yr help.
I have found Schedule 8 Sect 1 and 2 but this more or less repeats what is in LASORs - any gen on percentage sharing or advertising criteria - in writing - as mentioned by BEagle gratefully received. Thank you for yr help.
Paul
CAP393 is a collection of legislation. Section 1 is the Air Navigation Order. It consists of 134 numbered articles, and 15 Schedules, which are effectively appendices cited by the Articles. For convenience, the articles are divided up into parts, and Art 130 is in Part XI GENERAL, which is the part they put stuff in if they can't think of anywhere better.
Rather unhelpfully, they don't bother to number the articles in the bookmarks in the PDF version. The article is entitled Public Transport and Aerial Work (which are the two other posibilities if a flight is not Private). It does not win a plain English award, hence I was simplifying with my list.
130(8) is the paragraph that deals with the cost sharing exemption. That says:
Flying club does not actually appear to be defined anywhere!
CAP393 is a collection of legislation. Section 1 is the Air Navigation Order. It consists of 134 numbered articles, and 15 Schedules, which are effectively appendices cited by the Articles. For convenience, the articles are divided up into parts, and Art 130 is in Part XI GENERAL, which is the part they put stuff in if they can't think of anywhere better.
Rather unhelpfully, they don't bother to number the articles in the bookmarks in the PDF version. The article is entitled Public Transport and Aerial Work (which are the two other posibilities if a flight is not Private). It does not win a plain English award, hence I was simplifying with my list.130(8) is the paragraph that deals with the cost sharing exemption. That says:
no information concerning the flight shall have been published or advertised prior to the commencement of the flight other than, in the case of an aircraft operated by a flying club, advertising wholly within the premises of such a flying club in which case all the persons carried on such a flight who are aged 18 years or over shall be members of that flying club;
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See also the CAA's summary of the position in http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/122/summar..._transport.pdf
I am always sceptical of the motivation for questions of these kinds from PPL holders, especially those with commercial flying aspirations. As I said on the other "please tell me how to do somewthing dodgy and get away with it" thread that is currently running, it's worth recalling what the first P in PPL stands for. If you want to fly for money, get a CPL.
I am always sceptical of the motivation for questions of these kinds from PPL holders, especially those with commercial flying aspirations. As I said on the other "please tell me how to do somewthing dodgy and get away with it" thread that is currently running, it's worth recalling what the first P in PPL stands for. If you want to fly for money, get a CPL.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE
4) Cost sharing when no more than 4 people are carried
UNQUOTE
This is an important one. Some people think it is dependent upon the number of seats in the aircraft. It is not. You can take a Navajo and cost share if you wish, but you can't have more than 4 people on board. Some people think a Cherokee Six is a great idea because costs are divided by 6, but unfortunately that's not the case.
4) Cost sharing when no more than 4 people are carried
UNQUOTE
This is an important one. Some people think it is dependent upon the number of seats in the aircraft. It is not. You can take a Navajo and cost share if you wish, but you can't have more than 4 people on board. Some people think a Cherokee Six is a great idea because costs are divided by 6, but unfortunately that's not the case.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Savannah GA & Portsmouth UK
Posts: 1,784
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul 101 said
Try looking in a dictionary:-
Remunerate - reward; pay for services rendered
If the legislators mean a term to have any meaning other than it's ordinary meaning then it will be specifically defined in the legislation (in this case the Air Navigation Order).
Mike
can anyone tell me what a defintion of renumeration means
Remunerate - reward; pay for services rendered
If the legislators mean a term to have any meaning other than it's ordinary meaning then it will be specifically defined in the legislation (in this case the Air Navigation Order).
Mike
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost Sharing
The requirement is that the pilot must pay his proportionate share of the cost.
eg If there are 4 POB including the pilot, then the pilot must pay at least 25% of the cost.
There is no requirement that the cost is divided equally between the persons on board. The passengers may divide the remaining cost as they wish, or one may pay for all three passengers.
Private or Public Transport?
The ANO provides a number of very complicated tests and exceptions to determine whether a flight is private or public transport.
In the context of Paul 101's question -
Article 130 provides that (with specified exceptions) "an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight."
If 'remuneration' was the test for determining whether a flight is a private or public transport, it would be easy to apply. However, nothing in UK aviation legislation is ever that easy to understand or apply, so the pilot has to ask himself whether 'valuable consideration' has been given or promised. To assist him, the ANO provides a helpful definition:
'Valuable consideration' "means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature."
This definition is not only very difficult to understand but extremely wide - far wider than remuneration.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the following example (I wasn't involved in the case) but I'm told the owner of a flying school was prosecuted for illegal public transport in these circumstances:
He agreed to fly some local 'celeb' to publicise a local event, providing both the helicopter and his services completely free of charge. He was prosecuted by the CAA for illegal public transport on the basis that, because the school's name was on the side of the helicopter, he obtained 'valuable consideration' in the form of publicity in the local press and on the local tv station.
I'm told he balanced the costs of fighting the case and paying the CAA's costs if he lost the case against the cost of just pleading guilty, paying the fine and a smaller sum in costs - and decided to plead guilty.
The requirement is that the pilot must pay his proportionate share of the cost.
eg If there are 4 POB including the pilot, then the pilot must pay at least 25% of the cost.
There is no requirement that the cost is divided equally between the persons on board. The passengers may divide the remaining cost as they wish, or one may pay for all three passengers.
Private or Public Transport?
The ANO provides a number of very complicated tests and exceptions to determine whether a flight is private or public transport.
In the context of Paul 101's question -
Article 130 provides that (with specified exceptions) "an aircraft in flight shall for the purposes of this Order be deemed to fly for the purposes of public transport if valuable consideration is given or promised for the carriage of passengers or cargo in the aircraft on that flight."
If 'remuneration' was the test for determining whether a flight is a private or public transport, it would be easy to apply. However, nothing in UK aviation legislation is ever that easy to understand or apply, so the pilot has to ask himself whether 'valuable consideration' has been given or promised. To assist him, the ANO provides a helpful definition:
'Valuable consideration' "means any right, interest, profit or benefit, forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility accruing, given, suffered or undertaken pursuant to an agreement, which is of more than a nominal nature."
This definition is not only very difficult to understand but extremely wide - far wider than remuneration.
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the following example (I wasn't involved in the case) but I'm told the owner of a flying school was prosecuted for illegal public transport in these circumstances:
He agreed to fly some local 'celeb' to publicise a local event, providing both the helicopter and his services completely free of charge. He was prosecuted by the CAA for illegal public transport on the basis that, because the school's name was on the side of the helicopter, he obtained 'valuable consideration' in the form of publicity in the local press and on the local tv station.
I'm told he balanced the costs of fighting the case and paying the CAA's costs if he lost the case against the cost of just pleading guilty, paying the fine and a smaller sum in costs - and decided to plead guilty.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say that I disagree that the definition is difficult to understand. Doing my best to think how I'd find it if I were not a lawyer, I still don't think that it's that hard to follow. Valuable consideration is something of value to the recipient, and free publicity might well count as such.
PS: looking at our respective posting times, there's too much getting up early in EC4
PS: looking at our respective posting times, there's too much getting up early in EC4
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FNG
You don't find the definition difficult to understand because you are a lawyer. I learned about 'valuable consideration' in the first few Contract lectures as student; you probably did too. But most non-lawyers don't know what it means, and I suspect very few of those who do know would realise how many things might fall within the very wide definition. I regularly deal with pilots trying to understand aviation legislation, or who have fallen foul of it. Not only do they frequently find it difficult to understand, but I can readily see why. Plain English hasn't reached aviation legislation yet!
In the context of this question .....
Most PPLs believe (wrongly) that the test is 'payment'* or 'remuneration' and honestly believe they are doing nothing illegal as long as they aren't being paid, either for the use of the aircraft or for flying it.
I wonder what proportion would realise their company name on the aircraft would in itself be enough to get them into trouble - or even think about that aspect. I know it came as a shock to the owner in question when he was prosecuted.
You say free publicity "might well" count as valuable consideration. Does that mean you're not certain, or that it depends upon the circumstances? If (as I assume) the latter, isn't it quite difficult for a non-lawyer to determine which circumstances fall inside or outside the law?
(*The CAA's own document to which you provided a link, refers throughout to 'payment'. Granted, there's a warning to look at the ANO itself which refers to 'valuable consideration' and makes no reference to payment, but IMHO it's rather harsh to criticise PPLs thinking in terms of 'payment' when the CAA does the same thing.)
Re your comment in your previous post:
I agree questions like Paul 101's can sometimes be attempts to evade the law, but they are often questions by people who are thinking of doing something, want to make absolutely sure they wouldn't be doing anything illegal, and find the relevant provisions difficult to track down and/or understand. Pprune is a valuable source of information on all aviation matters so they ask here.
PS
I'm at 9-12 Bell Yard - let's meet some time if you're not bothered about losing you Pprune anonymity.
You don't find the definition difficult to understand because you are a lawyer. I learned about 'valuable consideration' in the first few Contract lectures as student; you probably did too. But most non-lawyers don't know what it means, and I suspect very few of those who do know would realise how many things might fall within the very wide definition. I regularly deal with pilots trying to understand aviation legislation, or who have fallen foul of it. Not only do they frequently find it difficult to understand, but I can readily see why. Plain English hasn't reached aviation legislation yet!
In the context of this question .....
Most PPLs believe (wrongly) that the test is 'payment'* or 'remuneration' and honestly believe they are doing nothing illegal as long as they aren't being paid, either for the use of the aircraft or for flying it.
I wonder what proportion would realise their company name on the aircraft would in itself be enough to get them into trouble - or even think about that aspect. I know it came as a shock to the owner in question when he was prosecuted.
You say free publicity "might well" count as valuable consideration. Does that mean you're not certain, or that it depends upon the circumstances? If (as I assume) the latter, isn't it quite difficult for a non-lawyer to determine which circumstances fall inside or outside the law?
(*The CAA's own document to which you provided a link, refers throughout to 'payment'. Granted, there's a warning to look at the ANO itself which refers to 'valuable consideration' and makes no reference to payment, but IMHO it's rather harsh to criticise PPLs thinking in terms of 'payment' when the CAA does the same thing.)
Re your comment in your previous post:
I agree questions like Paul 101's can sometimes be attempts to evade the law, but they are often questions by people who are thinking of doing something, want to make absolutely sure they wouldn't be doing anything illegal, and find the relevant provisions difficult to track down and/or understand. Pprune is a valuable source of information on all aviation matters so they ask here.
PS
I'm at 9-12 Bell Yard - let's meet some time if you're not bothered about losing you Pprune anonymity.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying Lawyer, I have attempted to consider how an educated lay person might understand the definition, and believe that such a person would find the concept which it expresses to be reasonably intelligible. It is of course virtually impossible for any piece of legislation to prescribe precisely the outcome in every conceivable situation, and those in doubt may need to seek legal advice. In a hypothetical case of free publicity, I would be inclined to regard the publicity as a benefit accruing to the aircraft operator. In such a hypothetical case, the operator might allow his or her decision to provide an aircraft to be influenced by the possibility of free advertising, in which case he or she could hardly be described as a naive innocent.
As to the possible motivation underlying questions such as that raised in this thread, you are perhaps more charitably inclined than I am in this respect. Note that the topic starter is looking for advice on advertising. Why push the envelope if you are not looking to see how many fivers you can stuff into it? It's a pity that all these PPL-entrepreneurs won't be able to set the costs of all this free advice against their profits. Ain't life unfair?
PS: FL, I'm at Blackstone Chambers, it would be a pleasure to meet you.
PPS: the CAA Summary explicitly makes the point that "valuable consideration" is wider than payment (last page)
As to the possible motivation underlying questions such as that raised in this thread, you are perhaps more charitably inclined than I am in this respect. Note that the topic starter is looking for advice on advertising. Why push the envelope if you are not looking to see how many fivers you can stuff into it? It's a pity that all these PPL-entrepreneurs won't be able to set the costs of all this free advice against their profits. Ain't life unfair?
PS: FL, I'm at Blackstone Chambers, it would be a pleasure to meet you.
PPS: the CAA Summary explicitly makes the point that "valuable consideration" is wider than payment (last page)
Last edited by FNG; 26th Apr 2004 at 10:43.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...and there was I thinking that it was all about who has the most attractive sheep. It's good to learn how people live their lives. Pprune's like one great big Ladybird book really.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Almost Scotland
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say I'm finding the debate between FL and FNG most interesting.
I suppose I'm one of the 'educated lay persons' to which FNG refers, since I'm not a lawyer, though I am taking an OU Law degree out of interest.
I haven't, though, studied this part of the ANO in detail, and had missed the subtlety of 'valuable consideration' as opposed to 'payment'. The meaning of the former phrase, though, does not seem obscure. I believe the possible confusion in this respect, possibly added to by language used in the publication from the CAA which has been cited, should be clarified by the CAA as soon as possible.
As far as I know, all private pilots are attempting to stay within the law: it ought to be straightforward for them to assure themselves that they are doing so. In the meantime, it is good to have fora such as Pprune where issues can be aired and debated.
I suppose I'm one of the 'educated lay persons' to which FNG refers, since I'm not a lawyer, though I am taking an OU Law degree out of interest.
I haven't, though, studied this part of the ANO in detail, and had missed the subtlety of 'valuable consideration' as opposed to 'payment'. The meaning of the former phrase, though, does not seem obscure. I believe the possible confusion in this respect, possibly added to by language used in the publication from the CAA which has been cited, should be clarified by the CAA as soon as possible.
As far as I know, all private pilots are attempting to stay within the law: it ought to be straightforward for them to assure themselves that they are doing so. In the meantime, it is good to have fora such as Pprune where issues can be aired and debated.
Contract Law. Quite brightened up an otherwise dull 3rd year Aero Eng course at QMC, that did! Karsales (Harrow) ltd v. Wallace 1956 - and, of course, Carlill v The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company 1891! Much more fun than trying to understand entropy and enthalpy!
Even the Eurobabble of JARs is easier to comprehend for the average person than the tortuous prose of the ANO.
Given that even the average educated lay person has difficulty in understanding the ANO due to its total lack of plain English, the old CAA argument of 'It is regulated by ANO Article blah' is perhaps almost reason in itself for a good defence, were one to fall foul of some obscure piece of legislation contained therein. Because the ANO might as well be written in Albanian, for all the sense it makes to many.
Which is why we are so lucky to have mates like Flying Lawyer and FNG around on PPRuNe to clarify matters pertaining thereto....
We (the CAA and I) recently drafted the new NPPL re-validation and renewal proposals. As written by me, it took up only a few lines. But as needed in the ANO, it will doubtless occupy many paragraphs, sub-paragraphs and include difficult-to-follow cross-referencing.
(PS - Are you still up for 8 May, Tudor? Pse see your private e-mails)
Enjoy quaffing claret in chambers, or whatever you legal chaps do at luncheon!
Even the Eurobabble of JARs is easier to comprehend for the average person than the tortuous prose of the ANO.
Given that even the average educated lay person has difficulty in understanding the ANO due to its total lack of plain English, the old CAA argument of 'It is regulated by ANO Article blah' is perhaps almost reason in itself for a good defence, were one to fall foul of some obscure piece of legislation contained therein. Because the ANO might as well be written in Albanian, for all the sense it makes to many.
Which is why we are so lucky to have mates like Flying Lawyer and FNG around on PPRuNe to clarify matters pertaining thereto....
We (the CAA and I) recently drafted the new NPPL re-validation and renewal proposals. As written by me, it took up only a few lines. But as needed in the ANO, it will doubtless occupy many paragraphs, sub-paragraphs and include difficult-to-follow cross-referencing.
(PS - Are you still up for 8 May, Tudor? Pse see your private e-mails)
Enjoy quaffing claret in chambers, or whatever you legal chaps do at luncheon!
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The problem of drafting to which Beagle refers stems, in my opinion, from the culture of the Parliamentary drafting offices, and this affects many fields of activity as well as aviation. UK legislation has a particular adherence to the ""If X then Y", "A, provided that B, except for C" approach to legal drafting. Lawyers in general have greatly improved their use of plain English over the last decade or so, but this culture change has not thus far penetrated to the Parliamentary draftspersons.
Claret over luncheon? Not these days. We have modernised our vices, so are more likely to had up for sending inappropriately worded emails to the girly pupils than for quaffing too much Chateau Glug. Hoorah for progress.
PS: when I was very little, I did a hilarious unfair dismissal case involving two of the waiters in the Judges' dining room at the Old Bailey (where the Great and Good are entertained) hurling claret decanters at each other in the scullery.
Claret over luncheon? Not these days. We have modernised our vices, so are more likely to had up for sending inappropriately worded emails to the girly pupils than for quaffing too much Chateau Glug. Hoorah for progress.
PS: when I was very little, I did a hilarious unfair dismissal case involving two of the waiters in the Judges' dining room at the Old Bailey (where the Great and Good are entertained) hurling claret decanters at each other in the scullery.
Notwithstanding the aforementioned references to the worthies who draft the ANO, yes, the "Thou mayest not unless as provided for in sub-para blah or as excepted hereunder" BS really gets one's capricorn!
I wanted to write "To revalidate NPPL aeroplane ratings you may either (by proficiency check) or (by revalidation). To revalidate by experience, you must do the following in the 24 months before the expiry date: (etc))". Shall be interested to see how it finally appears in ANO-speak!
The nearest plain language explanations of licensing requirements are in LASORS - but even then there are references to JAA requirements which are not described. If they're going to quote JAA regs, then it's only fair to spell them out!
On the question of sending e-mails to girl pupils, be careful not to write what my brother once did on his e-memo system to his prospective new secretary: "I look forward to meeting you - my pen is poised!" Unfortunately he missed out the gap between 'pen' and 'is'!!!
Unfair, wrongful or constructive dismissal. That also had my head spinning in those law sessions of my Aero Eng degree in the early 1970s. Vaguely recall Donovan v Invicta Airways, I think it was?
I wanted to write "To revalidate NPPL aeroplane ratings you may either (by proficiency check) or (by revalidation). To revalidate by experience, you must do the following in the 24 months before the expiry date: (etc))". Shall be interested to see how it finally appears in ANO-speak!
The nearest plain language explanations of licensing requirements are in LASORS - but even then there are references to JAA requirements which are not described. If they're going to quote JAA regs, then it's only fair to spell them out!
On the question of sending e-mails to girl pupils, be careful not to write what my brother once did on his e-memo system to his prospective new secretary: "I look forward to meeting you - my pen is poised!" Unfortunately he missed out the gap between 'pen' and 'is'!!!
Unfair, wrongful or constructive dismissal. That also had my head spinning in those law sessions of my Aero Eng degree in the early 1970s. Vaguely recall Donovan v Invicta Airways, I think it was?
Last edited by BEagle; 26th Apr 2004 at 11:18.
Not so N, but still FG
Join Date: May 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blimey, BEagle, you have a good memory. I can't remember the names of cases that I read yesterday, and I do it for a living. I wonder why the law bits of your engineering degree included such stuff? I had some fun defending BA on assorted dismissal raps a few years back (pished-up Pursers, mostly, rather than sacked Nigels), which got me some jump seat rides on the shuttle to Manchester.
Plain English legislation is a possibility. A good example is the Human Rights Act (or, more accurately, the Convention, scheduled to the Act), which was drafted for the most part by a Brit team led by Viscount Kilmuir in the late 1940s. Some of the clearest statutory drafting I know of dates from the late C19 (late Victorian Judges also wrote their judgments with sparkling clarity, economy and precision).
Plain English legislation is a possibility. A good example is the Human Rights Act (or, more accurately, the Convention, scheduled to the Act), which was drafted for the most part by a Brit team led by Viscount Kilmuir in the late 1940s. Some of the clearest statutory drafting I know of dates from the late C19 (late Victorian Judges also wrote their judgments with sparkling clarity, economy and precision).
Pugh vs London Brighton and South Coast Railway 1896(?) being such a case. If I recall it was judged that you didn't need to suffer actual physical injury to be considered as having suffered an accident?
Then there was the famous snail in the ginger beer bottle.....I'm sure you know that one!
No memory trick - just 5 or 6 cases remembered from many years ago in case I should ever need to refer to them!
Then there was the famous snail in the ginger beer bottle.....I'm sure you know that one!
No memory trick - just 5 or 6 cases remembered from many years ago in case I should ever need to refer to them!