Civil Procedure - Civil Procedure rule 20.6 - Amendments to particulars of claim after limitation period - Whether amendments prohibited on the ground that they set up a fresh claim in negligence after expiration of the limitation period - Whether the court should exercise its discretion to permit the proposed amendments.

Civil Procedure Rules – Rule 15.2 – Whether the defendants have a real prospect of successfully defending the claim – Rule 26.3(1) – Whether the defence discloses reasonable grounds for defending the claim – Law of Real Property – Joint tenancy – Whether right of survivorship defeated

Constitutional Law – Mentally disordered defendant charged with murder - Found
unfit to plead by jury – Detained for some 50 years at Governor General’s pleasure – Whether detention lawful – Periodic reviews not done for some 42 years – No legal assistance provided to claimant during detention - The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Constitutional Amendment) Act, 2011, sections 13 (3)(a), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (o), (p), (r), 13(6), sections 14 (1)(a) 14(5) , 16(1), 16(2), 16(5),16(6)(c), & 16(10).

Injunction – Interim Relief – Is there a serious issue to be tried – Would damages be an adequate remedy – Is the claim one for monetary compensation – Where does the balance of convenience lie – Judicature (Supreme Court) Act section 49h – Civil Procedure Rule 17.1

Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment – Adverse Possession Claim – Is this an appropriate case to deal with summarily – Whether section 30 of the Limitation of Actions Act must be specifically pleaded – Are the proper parties before the Court – Limitation of Actions Act sections 3, 14 and 30 – Civil Procedure Rules 19.3, 26.9, 27 and 67.2

Application for leave for Judicial Review – Whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the Application – Whether there is an arguable case with a realistic prospect of success.

Negligence - Duty of Care of Driver of Public Passenger Vehicle to passenger - Breach of Duty of Care  - Whether the Defendant Driver breached his Duty of Care to his Passenger by putting the vehicle in motion while the passenger’s body was only partially inside. Damages - Pain and suffering and Loss of amenities.

Tort – Malicious Prosecution – Whether or not the 2nd Defendant had reasonable and probable to prosecute the Claimant for the offences charged - False Imprisonment – Whether or not the 2nd Defendant lawfully arrested and detained the Defendant for the offences under the Town and Communities Act and the other offences – Whether the Claimant was entitled to resist an unlawful arrest - Assault – Whether the 2nd Defendant Assaulted the Claimant - Statute – Town & Communities Act, Sections 11 and 23 -  Constabulary Force Act, Sections 15, 30 a

Administrative Law – Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review out of time – principles involved - Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review – whether Applicant has a good arguable case with a real prospect of success - Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review – Whether or not the failure to give reasons for their award is a valid ground for leave to be granted for judicial review of the decision of the IDT – Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review – Whether or not the IDT gave a clear reason for refusing to admit evid

Negligence - Liability for motor vehicle collision - Rear end collision - Personal Injury - Contributory negligence - Assessment of damages.