Procedural control and the proper balance between public and private interests in defamation claims

Claims in defamation involve courts in balancing of a number of interests. The Claimant’s interest in their reputation must be balanced with the Defendant’s interest in free expression. The Court’s interest in fair, efficient and proportionate adjudication must be balanced against the Claimant’s interest in vindicating their reputation. Much of the literature examining this balance has focused on the substantive law. This article seeks to consider how these interests have been balanced through procedural control mechanisms, such as summary judgment and strike out. In particular, the development of the court’s ability to strike out a claim as an abuse of process is been considered. It is argued that the ability to strike out in such cases performs an important role, but should not be used to prevent reputational vindication where this is worthwhile. Further, it is argued that whilst substantive and procedural changes may reduce the need for strike out, the courts should not remove this important tool from their toolbox

Inhibition of a Cathepsin L-Like Cysteine Protease by a Chimeric Propeptide-Derived Inhibitor

NRC publication: Ye

The impact of personality and coping on the development of depressive symptoms in adult burns survivors

This prospective study examined the extent to which the personality traits neuroticism, extraversion and agreeableness and coping styles approach, avoidant and ambivalent contribute to the development of depressive symptoms in adult burns survivors at three months post-injury. Participants were 70 adult burns survivors admitted to Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia between June 2007 and February 2008. Personality was assessed using the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R), coping was evaluated with the Coping with Burns Questionnaire (CBQ) and depressive symptoms were measured using The Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Twenty one percent of retained participants at three months (n = 29) reported clinically significant depressive symptoms. There were no significant relationships between depressive symptoms at three months and demographic or burn characteristics. Neuroticism significantly predicted depressive symptoms at three-month follow-up and this relationship was significantly mediated by avoidant coping. In addition, extraversion, avoidant coping and approach coping were all significant and independent predictors of depressive symptoms at three months. These findings suggest that burns patients at greatest risk of developing clinically significant depressive symptoms may be identifiable in the acute recovery phase. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI

Litigation funding: status and issues

Litigation funding is new and topical. It has the capacity to significantly alter the litigation scene. It gives rise to particular issues that need understanding and attention. It is relevant only in certain situations, and while it is not a possible solution to all types of claims it has the potential to significantly increase opportunities to pursue certain claims. The basic model of litigation funding is an investment business based on securing an appropriate return on investment. It is not a banking loan as no interest is charged, and not insurance as no premium is charged. Investment is made in any case that has a sufficient prospect of success on its merits, and has a strong legal team with a convincing case strategy. In some types of offering, however, the model of litigation funding can appear to be more like the provision of legal services. This is where a funder, sometimes from a legal services background, conducts a detailed assessment of the legal merits of a case (including obtaining or providing specialist legal advice on the case) prior to agreeing to funding. Funders determine the risk, and ultimately the extent of the investment, based on an assessment of the merits of the case, the solvency of the defendant (or, in the case of a funded defendant, the resources of the claimant) and the size of the claim and likely return. However, during this research the contrary view that litigation funding is part of the legal services market has been raised. Arguably the nature of the funding being offered and background of the funder (i.e. whether legal services or insurance/financial sector) can be factor. This research examines the current structure of the litigation funding market and the types of product on offer. Litigation funding can apply advanced banking techniques to a legal claim, treating it like any other valuable asset and applying the same risk assessment techniques in determining the level of finance offered. The initial phase of 3rd party litigation funding is an exploratory affair where both the funder and the client are seeking partners in spreading risk and distributing reward. The funder cannot make such a decision without detailed assessment of the legal and factual matrix of the case and its prospects of success (and would perhaps be foolish to proceed without such an exercise) and although the funder might share such insights with the prospective client, they are essentially the funder's work product. The development of the litigation funding market has thus merely recognised an expanded use for a new asset class (claims or defences) and opened up a new market for associated finance. Litigation funding is currently a bespoke product tailored to the needs of the specific market and legal jurisdiction. There are thus, difference conceptions of litigation funding in the UK, mainland Europe, Australia, Canada, the US and South Africa. Within the UK there are examples of co-funding or risk spreading so that some funders may jointly fund a large case, and some arrangements may involve various companies providing different packets of finance or insurance. The principal constraint on the development of litigation funding is traditional public policy against funding others’ litigation or intermeddling in the conduct of litigation (the concepts of maintenance and champerty discussed later in this report). However, such rules are being reformed in some jurisdictions, although no consistency has 2 emerged over what the emerging policy and principles should be, and different jurisdictions are making different reforms at different speeds (or not doing so). This research examines the status of litigation third party funding, the different funding models currently in use and assesses the historical development of third party funding and the legislative and policy considerations that inform the current market. In doing so, it draws conclusions on the potential of litigation funding to increase access to justice in light of current policy changes in the provision of legal services

Alcohol Expectancies and Drinking in Different Age Groups

Aims: Because expectancies about the effects of alcohol change as drinking experience is accumulated, it is likely that the relationship of expectancy to drinking will differ with age. In this study, we examine the prediction of drinking behavior from positive and negative outcome expectancy at different ages. Design: Data were collected as part of the National Alcohol Survey, using a multi-stage area probability sample of the household population of the 48 contiguous United States. Participants: US residents aged 12 and older (n = 2875). Measurements: Survey questions included drinking habits (frequency, quantity, frequency of drunkenness, maximum quantity) and beliefs about the effects of alcohol (alcohol expectancies). Findings: Structural equation models tested the relationship of positive and negative expectancy to drinking behavior in six age groups. Outcome expectancy accounted for a larger portion of the variance in drinking among younger respondents than among older respondents. However, suppression effects were common. When suppression effects were considered, positive expectancy predicted drinking better than negative expectancy only among respondents under 35, while negative expectancy was a better predictor of drinking status in most respondents over 35 years. Among drinkers, positive expectancy predominated over negative expectancy when suppression effects were considered. Conclusions: These results suggest that negative expectancy predicts abstention, while positive expectancy predicts level of drinking among drinkers. In expectancy research, differences between drinkers and abstainers, age of participants and the presence of suppression effects should be taken into account