Skeletons, not zombies please

To paraphrase Jackson LJ in Inplayer v Thorogood

A gentle reminder to us all that skeletons are to set out concisely and in brief, and certainly not in a profit fashion (unlike this post) the key issues and authorities in a party’s case so as to enable a court to get to grips with a case.

Useful to an advocate is the reminder that it is not just used for pre reading and the hearing but also after when pondering a reserved judgment. Therefore if it is what it should be then it stands as a constant reminder of why the judge should find in your favour – and if reminders such as this are necessary then a march may be stolen if your skeleton is that clear, concise paradigm of the art of written advocacy and the one the judge prefers to refer to.

Now back to the regularly scheduled programming – limitation, which appropriately enough is running late.

Limitation cases

Right, new job for me which means new bits of law to get deeply interested in, sadly for the one reader out there that means I’ll be trying to use this blog as a dumping ground for my notes and thoughts on cases.

For anyone else reading just remember this is not legal advice, and anyone brave enough to base any advice they want to give on my late night scribblings on a case may wish to rethink their legal research tools 🙂

In case you can’t guess my problem of the day is the law of limitation and it’s various applications, extensions and other such issues.