Discuss whether the majority opinion in the decision of the House of Lords was in accordance with the earlier decisions, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.

• Identify the legal issues in this case and summarise the facts. (10)

• Summarise the legal reasoning of Lord Nicholls and Lord Millett. (25)

• Discuss whether the majority opinion in the decision of the House of Lords was in accordance with the earlier decisions, both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal. (10)

• Critically analyse the issues of statutory interpretation that were raised in this case. (30 marks)

• With reference to specific passages in the case where necessary, consider whether the judges demonstrated evidence of any two of the five core qualities, identified by the Judicial Appointments Commission, for a judicial office. (10 marks)

Part B

Either

• In discussing the difficulties of statutory interpretation, the House of Lords examined the role of Parliament and the role of the courts, with Lord Rodger affirming a dictum of Lord Nicholls in an earlier case that “interpretation of statutes is a matter for the courts; the enactment of statutes, and the amendments of statutes are matters for Parliament” (para. 112). Discuss how the current law relating to removal of superior judges protects the principle of judicial independence indicating whether or not the judges in the case can be sued or removed for the opinions they expressed. (15 marks)

Or

• With reference to relevant statutory provisions in civil appeal, explain the appeal history of the Ghaidan case from the county court to the House of Lords, giving the grounds for appeal against the order of Judge Cowell. (15 marks).