One of the most deceptively simple words in the legal vocabulary is “reasonable.” It’s everywhere — in contract law, torts, employment disputes, even criminal defences. We are constantly asking: What would a reasonable person have done? Was that response reasonable? Did the employer act reasonably under the circumstances? And yet, behind this one word lies an entire world of legal ambiguity, discretion, and evolution. Today, I want to explore what “reasonableness” really means in law, why it's not as neutral as it sounds, and what it tells us about how the law balances principle with real-world complexity. A Principle Rooted in Context Unlike statutory tests or formulaic procedures, “reasonableness” is an inherently contextual concept. It requires courts to step into the shoes of an imagined neutral observer — the “reasonable person” — and evaluate actions against a standard that’s deliberately flexible. In negligence law, it’s the classic benchmark: Did the defendant breach their duty

In my post about the For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Misisters [2024] UKSC 42 case, I promised I would do my best to give an explanation of Scotland's court system, which is bifurcated into civil and criminal jurisdictions, each with its own hierarchy:​ Civil Courts Sheriff Courts: These are the primary courts for civil matters, handling cases such as family disputes, personal injury claims, and contractual disagreements. They have jurisdiction over cases with a monetary value up to £100,000.​ Court of Session: As Scotland's supreme civil court, it is divided into: Outer House: Functions as a court of first instance for significant or complex civil cases.​ Inner House: Serves as the principal appellate court for civil matters.​ Criminal Courts Justice of the Peace Courts: Handle minor criminal offences, such as traffic violations and petty theft.​ Sheriff Courts: Deal with more serious criminal cases, both summary (without a jury) and solemn (with a jury).​ High Court of Justicia

Ever been told, “You’ve got no right of appeal”? It’s a phrase people throw around with confidence—and often, complete inaccurately. This week, I’ve been thinking a lot about appeals. Not the romantic kind (although, wouldn't courtroom dramas be more fun if there were roses involved? (I would have love to see Martha Costello and Clive Reader falling in love in the court room as they face off in yet another criminal trial), but the dry, process-heavy, incredibly important kind that lawyers lose sleep over. Appeals aren’t “redos”—they’re about asking a higher court to check if something went wrong. Not just because a party didn’t like the outcome, but because a significant error of law or process affected the decision. Most appeals don’t even get off the ground without permission from the court, and that’s especially true in civil cases. But criminal law? There, you’ve often got an automatic right to apply. And what are we really appealing? Usually, it’s not the facts. It’s not that the

When I first started studying law, I was fascinated by the clarity of legal principles. The structure, the logic, the way a case can hinge on the precise interpretation of a few key words—it was all deeply satisfying. But as I’ve continued my journey, working in legal-adjacent leadership roles and studying alongside real-world legal developments, I’ve come to realise something just as important: Understanding legal principles is only half the story—applying them in practice is where the real learning happens. In this post, I want to reflect on how legal principles move from theory to practice, and why grappling with that transition is essential for anyone serious about a legal career—especially in complex, fast-moving areas like commercial, regulatory, and employment law. From Blackletter Law to Grey-Area Decision-Making In law school, we often begin with blackletter law—clearly defined rules laid out in textbooks, statutes, and leading cases. These principles provide the scaffolding:

The legal system of England and Wales is admired for its long-standing history, deep-rooted principles of common law, and global influence. But for those navigating the system—whether as a litigant, legal professional, or interested observer—it’s vital to understand how the courts are structured and how they interact. In this blog post, I break down the court hierarchy, explain the roles of different courts, and show how justice is administered across civil, criminal, and appellate matters. The Basics: A Hierarchical Court System The courts in England and Wales operate in a hierarchical structure. At the base are courts of first instance, where cases begin. Above these are appellate courts, which hear appeals on law or procedure. The structure broadly separates into civil and criminal branches, although some courts have jurisdiction in both. Let’s explore them from the ground up. Magistrates’ Courts (Criminal and Limited Civil) Role: Entry point for almost all criminal cases. Jurisdict