Law essay conclusion example no. 1 - Tort law

The example conclusion below comes from an essay-style essay in tort law on the topic of the remoteness of damage.

Conclusion

As illustrated above, by dissecting of the two-fold test in Hadley and cherry picking the application of each of those by the courts in Victoria and Parsons introduced significant confusion into the law on remoteness of damage in contract law disputes. While the decision in John appears to have introduced some clarity into this area by re-applying both limbs of the Hadley test jointly, the impact of John – and in particular the extent to which it will receive positive judicial consideration – remains to be seen.

Law essay conclusion example no. 2 - European Union law

The example conclusion below comes from an international law essay-style essay.

Conclusion

In conclusion, despite the narrow interpretation of Art. 263(4) by the CJEU in the case of Plaumann, decisions such as Piraiki and Toepfer show that the requirement of individual concern under that Article is not impossible to meet. Furthermore, the decisions in International Fruit Company and Cordoniu facilitate individual standing under Art. 263(4) even further, therefore making it achievable.

Law essay conclusion example no. 3 - Tort law

This example conclusion also comes from a tort law essay, but this time it was a problem-style essay.

Conclusion

As illustrated above, Lucas is likely to successfully claim private nuisance, including obtaining an injunction and (possibly) damages for the interference with his enjoyment of land due to the smell and noise emanating from Andrew’s farm. Moreover, John is likely to recover damages for the destruction of his plants by Andrew’s insecticides under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher, although his claim for defamation will be successful only if it is not set aside as abuse of the process.

Law essay conclusion example no. 4 - International law

The example conclusion below comes from an essay-style essay in international law.

Conclusion

The arguments presented above demonstrate that the answer to the question of whether ‘important and spectacular’ violations of international law can cause grave damage to the credibility of that law is largely dependent on the approach adopted to understanding the nature of international law in general. In his quotation Morgenthau acknowledges that some damage to the credibility of international law can be inflicted through the lack of compliance by powerful states, although such damage is not sufficient to lead to the complete invalidation of the law. Given the arguments put forward above in relation to the law on the use of force and international human rights law, one could only conclude that Morgenthau’s opinion is fully justified.

Law essay conclusion example no. 5 - Tort law

This fifth example conclusion comes from another problem-style tort law essay.

Conclusion

Given the above arguments, Henry is likely to be liable to the full extent for the severe injuries sustained by Peter, and for those injuries sustained by Mary which she was likely to sustain had she been wearing a seatbelt. However, he will not be liable for Mary’s death since the penicillin injection broke the chain of causation. The hospital (on behalf of Alex) might be liable for Mary’s death provided that Alex did not follow standard medical practice when ordering the injection. Finally, Henry will not be liable for the financial loss suffered by Jade.

Law essay conclusion example no. 6 - Business law

The following conclusion example comes from an essay-style business law essay.

Conclusion

As explained above, the advantages of running a business as a partnership include flexibility in terms of the agreements between the partners on how to run the business, and ease of setting up a business and meeting any formal requirements. On the other hand, the disadvantages of this business structure compared to a company limited by shares include the lack of protection of partners’ personal assets and difficulty with solving disputes.

Law essay conclusion example no. 7 - Family law

This seventh conclusion example comes from an essay-style essay in family law.

Conclusion

As illustrated above, the introduction of a no order presumption in domestic abuse cases would constitute a significant interference of the state in family life of the citizens. It would potentially deprive some children of face-to-face contact with their parents, even where it would be beneficial for contact to be maintained. Moreover, the existing safeguards embedded in the welfare principle under s. 1 of the CA, the surrounding cases and Practice Direction 12J appear to provide strong protection for children and victim parents against future domestic abuse. Therefore, the introduction of a no order principle in those circumstances could be excessive.

Law essay conclusion example no. 8 - Public and administrative law

This conclusion was included in a public and administrative law essay-style essay.

Conclusion

The core principle of Dicey’s theory provides that the law-making power of the UK parliament should not be restricted at all. This strict traditional version of parliamentary sovereignty never applied to the UK, as illustrated in cases such as Burmah Oil, Ellen Estates and Ghaidan. The reason for this lack of complete parliamentary supremacy in the UK was not only the country’s relationship with the EU, but also its internal limitations, such as the implied repeal doctrine. Although the UK’s exit from the EU has no doubt removed some restrictions on the supremacy of the UK parliament, others (as discussed above) will remain despite it. Therefore, it cannot be said that Brexit restored Dicey’s theory of parliamentary supremacy in the UK. Rather, the ultimate supremacy of the UK parliament was always preserved, and it will continue to be preserved now, following Brexit, with some limitations removed and – perhaps – others added.

Law essay conclusion example no. 9 - Public law

This last example conclusion was included in an essay-style law essay in public law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the desire to uphold the intention of Parliament is indeed driving the judicial review of decisions of public authorities in many cases, including in reviews on the grounds of illegality and proportionality. However, in a review based on the ground of irrationality or procedural impropriety the courts rely to a significant extent on the common law principles established through the precedent.