An extract from a Court of Appeal judgement today admonishing the High Court for using informal language.

https://i.redd.it/1lgogl0qy6rd1.png

Posted by nitro1234561

15 Comments

  1. Mad that they pull this up because a judge didn’t understand it, when this entire profession throws Latin terms in every paragraph.

  2. ApprehensiveBed6206 on

    Their judgement on gaslighting is more interesting than three LotR’s reference. Is gaslighting not a term in the dictionary? What’s wrong with that?

  3. I thought gaslighting went into the dictionary. The Lord of the Rings stuff shouldn’t be there; it is a reactionary pile of shite.

  4. marquess_rostrevor on

    The more ridiculous thing is that the court doesn’t even sit unless the beacons are lit.

  5. Courts need to adopt a plain language approach but this isn’t surprising seeing as most judges seem to be stuck in the 19th century. 

  6. Professional_Elk_489 on

    Won’t the High Court tell the Court of Appeal to get fucked

    You are either the High Court or you are not

  7. The use of an uncommon word like militates to make this point is a bit ironic, I’d say more readers would recognise the slang.

  8. There is nothing clear in upper court judgement what the fuck is the COA talking about. Court opinions is nothing but highfalutin dictum

  9. As a child I was a witness in a case, entire thing left me with a bad impression to be honest. Zero justice. But I’ll never forget hearing this judge, in court in the west of Ireland, drone on in his posh British accent. People with their stupid little wigs on, as if that lent legitimacy to the whole thing – if there’s no wigs they won’t take us seriously!

    At one point I was sitting waiting to be called up, the barrister had given me a wine gum. I was 12. This vicious prick stops the entire proceeding, points at me, and like something out of Dickens booms “Are you chewing gum?!” Phonetically sounded like “Aah yoo choo-wing gaaam?”

    I’m one of those who does actually believe in spelling and grammar and speaking clearly, but what they do isn’t it.

  10. Didyoufartjustthere on

    Thank god. I had to study law as a module in college. I got all the cases but couldn’t understand a fucking thing in the books.

    I remember having to get solicitor to read a contract i had to sign. I mistook one of the terms as the opposite and he said “they make it so confusing so you have to pay us to explain it”