To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: English law: torts.
Journal articles on the topic 'English law: torts'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'English law: torts.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Hartshorne, John. "The need for an intrusion upon seclusion privacy tort within English law." Common Law World Review 46, no. 4 (November 23, 2017): 287–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473779517739798.
Full textAbstract:
In the United States, New Zealand and the Canadian province of Ontario, recognition has been afforded to privacy torts remedying intrusions upon seclusion or solitude, and the creation of such a tort has also been recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. In England and Wales, recognition has so far only been afforded to a privacy tort remedying misuse of private information. This article considers the current prospects for the recognition of an intrusion upon seclusion tort within English law. It will be suggested that there is less necessity for such recognition following the apparent recent confirmation by the decisions in Gulati v MGN and Vidal-Hall v Google that misuse of private information claims may still be brought where there is no ensuing publication of wrongly acquired private information. Given that intrusions commonly result in the acquisition of private information, it will be suggested that many of the privacy interests protected by the intrusion torts in other jurisdictions may now therefore be protected in English law through a claim for misuse of private information.
2
Ahmed, Raheel. "The Influence of "Reasonableness" on the Element of Conduct in Delictual or Tort Liability - Comparative Conclusions." Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 22 (October 7, 2019): 1–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2019/v22i0a6122.
Full textAbstract:
In this contribution the influence of reasonableness on the element of conduct in the South African law of delict will be analysed and compared with the requirement of some form of conduct in English tort law, American tort law and the French law of delict.
Fundamental similarities and differences among the different legal systems must be considered. France and South Africa follow a generalising approach to determining a delict while English and American law have a system of separate torts.
Even though English and American law do not explicitly refer to the requirement of conduct in tort law, it is generally implicitly required. This is the case whether one is dealing with the tort of negligence or the intentional torts. In French law too, a fait générateur (a generating, triggering, wrongful act or event) generally must also be present in order to ground delictual liability. The concept of fait générateur is broader than the concept of conduct found in the other jurisdictions in that it extends beyond what is regarded as human conduct. The conduct in all the jurisdictions may be in the form of a commission (a positive, physical act or statement) or an omission (a failure to act). The requirement that conduct must be voluntary is generally found in South African, English and American law (with an exception applying to mentally impaired persons) but not in France. Naturally, it is unreasonable to hold a person liable without conduct which results in the causing of harm or loss. In all the above-mentioned jurisdictions, it would generally be unreasonable to hold the wrongdoer liable in delict or tort law if the omission or commission does not qualify as some form of conduct. Thus the influence of reasonableness on the element of conduct in all the above-mentioned jurisdictions is implicit.
3
Tamblyn, Nathan. "Private Necessity in English and American Tort Law." Global Journal of Comparative Law 1, no. 1 (2012): 38–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/2211906x-00101002.
Full textAbstract:
This article seeks to provide a comprehensive formulation of the tortious defence of necessity in English law, and to identify the lessons which can be learned by comparing it with the American privilege of private necessity set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts.
4
Downes, T. A. "Trawling for a remedy: state liability under Community law." Legal Studies 17, no. 2 (July 1997): 286–304. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.1997.tb00408.x.
Full textAbstract:
This paper explores the implications for English law of the decision of the European Court of Justice in joined cases C-46/93 Brasserie du Pêcheur v Germany and C-48/93 R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (No 4) and subsequent decisions developing the principles enunciated therein. More specifically, it examines how the English law of torts is to accommodate the European law obligation to compensate, in appropriate circumstances, individuals suffering a loss as a result of a breach by the state of Community law. In confronting this question English law is engaged in the unfamiliar exercise of attempting to match a remedy to an already recognised right: the history of the common law, and the law of torts in particular, is of defining rights in the light of the existing remedies under which they could be asserted.
5
Atkin, W. R. "Tort Law Text and Materials by Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant." Victoria University of Wellington Law Review 32, no. 2 (July 2, 2001): 599. http://dx.doi.org/10.26686/vuwlr.v32i2.5896.
Full textAbstract:
This article is a book review of Mark Lunney and Ken Oliphant, Tort Law Text and Materials Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000, 819 + lix pages (Reg Retail NZ$95). Lunney and Oliphant's book is a book of materials and cases of English tort law developments, although the authors have both done research in New Zealand as well. Atkin reviews the tort law developments in England covered in the book and then compares it to that of New Zealand, including the torts of invasion of privacy and negligence. Atkin commends the book for its innovative writing and style. The frequent pattern of the book is to include critique and commentary after the relevant case law, which Atkin states are memorable and of high quality.
6
Cottrell, Jill. "The Functions of the Law of Torts in Africa." Journal of African Law 31, no. 1-2 (1987): 161–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021855300009311.
Full textAbstract:
Professor Allott observed nearly a quarter of century ago:“There can be no justification (other than inertia) for the continued application of the unreformed English law of torts in modern African countries”.There is no doubt that he was right; there is equally no doubt that it is still substantially the unreformed law which is applied. Certainly there has been very little in the way of legislative change. This paper is not concerned mainly with this question, but with what uses African litigants and their lawyers have found for this exotic field of law, and also, to some extent, with the further question of how far the law has proved fitted for the tasks.A glance at legal periodicals in the United Kingdom and even more so in the USA indicates that there is something of a ferment in tort scholarship. We find writers asking questions like “Does tort have a future?” While at the same time others demand that tort take on new roles. By way of complete contrast, it might appear from African legal literature that the law of tort is of virtually no significance. There are very few books and journal articles are relatively rare. It attracts even less attention from those who write on law and development.It has been said of the Antipodean law of tort that it “does not, in general, reflect the Australian outback and its pastoral economy, nor New Zealand's earthquakes, volcanoes and glaciers, nor exemplify an Australian or New Zealand ethos”.
7
Giliker, Paula. "Osman and police immunity in the English law of torts." Legal Studies 20, no. 3 (September 2000): 372–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.2000.tb00149.x.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines and questions the nature of police immunity from claims for negligence in the investigation and suppression of crime, as stated by the House of Lords in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. This issue has been discussed before the European Court of Human Rights in Osman v United Kingdom, where the court held that a blanket application of the immunity was contrary to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This article will argue that this decision does not overturn the basic public policy principles for the immunity stated in Hill and that further examination of this area of law is required. It is submitted that if the law is considered in terms of proximity rather than in terms of public policy immunity, a clearer understanding of the principles underlying this area of law can be reached together with the desirable goal of removing the term ‘immunity’ from this area of law.
8
Dietrich, Joachim. "Accessorial liability in the law of torts." Legal Studies 31, no. 2 (June 2011): 231–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.2010.00173.x.
Full textAbstract:
This paper considers the scope and limits of accessorial liability in the law of torts. It argues that the issue has been under-analysed, in part because such liability is encompassed under the label of ‘joint tortfeasorship’. Analysis of the question of accessorial liability needs to focus on two questions: what is the requisite involvement of the ‘accessory’ and what is the requisite mental state of the accessory when committing those acts? The paper seeks to define the precise limits of these two requirements and argues, after an analysis of the English and Australian authorities, that the current tests for accessorial liability, in rejecting liability for ‘mere’ assistance, are too narrowly stated.
9
Fentiman, Richard. "The justiciability of foreign copyright claims." Cambridge Law Journal 58, no. 2 (July 1999): 265–93. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s000819739929201x.
Full textAbstract:
WHEN can English defendants be sued in England for the infringement of a foreign copyright? They were once immune, for two distinct reasons. English law formerly governed liability even for foreign torts, the effect of the rule in Phillips v. Eyre (1870) L.R. 6 Q.B. 1. Such claims were therefore pointless because English copyright protection extends only to English infringements; English law, although in principle applicable, could not be applied. Less convincingly, foreign intellectual property rights, like rights in foreign land, were generally regarded as non-justiciable under the rule in British South Africa Co. v. Cia. de Moçambique [1893] A.C. 602.
10
Aryan, Shahram, and Bagher Mirabbasi. "Study on English and French Law." Journal of Politics and Law 9, no. 2 (March 31, 2016): 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jpl.v9n2p232.
Full textAbstract:
Accepting the principle of good faith in the pre-contractual period entails certain consequences. Observing this principle would require that the parties cooperate and exchange information by exhibiting utmost honesty, transparency, and seriousness in their preliminary talks towards achieving their mutual goals; and that each party, while respecting the information confidentiality of the other party and refusing to enter into parallel negotiations, shall respect the other party’s interests. The principle of good faith is not explicitly recognized as a general rule in Iran’s statutes. Although the necessity of observing the principle of good faith in all laws and obligations in all instances including the pre-contractual period can be proved using the principle of induction from the criteria stipulated in Article 8, Iran’s Law of Civil Liability (i.e., Law of Torts) as well as other current Iranian regulations, this method would not convince the legal Iranian community to accept the principle of good faith as a general rule. Therefore, social and economic imperatives would necessitate that the principle of good faith should be recognized explicitly in the Iranian statutes.
11
Feng, Tan Keng. "Failure of medical advice: trespass or negligence?" Legal Studies 7, no. 2 (July 1987): 149–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.1987.tb00358.x.
Full textAbstract:
Failure of medical advice by a medical practitioner can vitiate a patient’s consent to treatment giving rise to battery and it can also constitute a breach of the medical practitioner’s duty to inform bringing in negligence. This failure to inform pertains to the two torts of battery and negligence. What then is the distinction between medical trespass and medical negligence? The English cases from Chatterton v Gerson in 1981 to the recent leading case of Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors and Others have drawn a distinction. The distinction between the two torts is useful for the purposes of classification and application of tortious liability and is also necessary for the purpose of establishing the different functions of the two torts. Unfortunately, the distinction drawn is inappropriate. The article will first examine the distinction drawn by the cases between the two torts in this area of failure of medical advice; then it will discuss the difficulties in the distinction employed; and, finally, it will suggest a more appropriate relationship between medical trespass and negligence.
12
Sheehan, Duncan. "Negotiorum Gestio: A Civilian Concept in the Common Law?" International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55, no. 2 (April 2006): 253–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei081.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper assesses whether English law recognizes a concept of negotiorum gestio. Claimants intervening in other' affairs and seeking restitution or reimbursement of expenses are often labeled ‘officious’, and disallowed relief. That, however, gives a misleading impression of English law. English law does recognize a concept of negotiorum gestio, which while very different to that found in German law, has parallels to versions found in other Civilian systems. It provides a cause of action to recover the intervenor's expenses, and any loss suffered during the intervention. It also provides a defence to the intervenor's intentional torts, although negligent intervenors will remain liable for their negligence
13
Lahe, Janno. "The Concept of Fault of the Tortfeasor in Estonian Tort Law: A Comparative Perspective." Review of Central and East European Law 38, no. 2 (2013): 141–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/092598812x13274154887420.
Full textAbstract:
The fault of the wrongdoer is one of the preconditions for general tort liability. Nowadays, fault-based liability and strict liability are two equally important forms of liability that are not polar opposites but, rather, complement one another. This article focuses on the meaning of the fault of a tortfeasor. It considers the notion of fault in two European model rules (the Draft Common Frame of Reference and the Principles of European Tort Law), in the Estonian Law of Obligations Act, and also makes reference to German, French, English, and Russian tort law. We shall begin with a comparative discussion of the questions of general liability based on fault, fault capacity, various forms of fault, the burden of proving fault, and the importance of differentiating those forms of fault. Thereafter, we will treat the issues of fault in the context of liability for torts committed by another person and, also, borderline issues between fault-based liability and strict liability. This analysis seeks to offer the reader a basis for determining whether the regulations of Estonian tort law are justified or whether amendments should be considered within such a comparative-law framework.
14
Słup, Paweł. "Czy „Król może czynić źle”? Odpowiedzialność cywilna za wykonywanie władzy publicznej w prawie angielskim." Studia Iuridica 76 (January 17, 2019): 341–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0012.8637.
Full textAbstract:
The principle of state liability has been widely recognised in 20th century and codified in certain jurisdictions. English law, however, has been traditionally reluctant to recognise the liability of Crown distinct from the of its servants. According to the long-standing principle of rule of law, servants of the Crown should be liable for torts committed in their official capacity just as individuals. The principle has been allegedly designed to protect the individuals from arbitrary decisions of public authorities, which fall in their actions under jurisdiction of common courts. It was not until the advance of Crown Proceedings Act 1974 when the Crown took material liability for torts committed by its servants. The nature of tortious liability of the public bodies, however, remained peculiar. The aim of this article is to indicate that the underlying concept of individual liability of servants, once designed to protect the individuals, now restricts the scope of civil liability of public bodies in English law.
15
Walton, Clarence C. "Punitive Damages: New Twists in Torts." Business Ethics Quarterly 1, no. 3 (July 1991): 269–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3857614.
Full textAbstract:
While jurisprudence in the United States has been cast in the general mode of the English common law, modifications over time have produced enough significant variations that American law has a distinctive quality. To illustrate: The exclusionary rule in criminal cases prohibiting the use of evidence (even from reliable witnesses) acquired through illegal search, is not followed in Britain—or, for that matter, in Canada, Germany, and Israel. The punitive-damage concept (PD) in tort law is also a jurisprudential novelty. Punitive damages are imposed in addition to compensatory awards given to tort victims to warn manufacturers and sellers to be careful in their safety and marketing practices. PDs are society's warning signals: Seller beware! Because they are one of society's ways to protect itself, PDs have recently been considered as fines which, to prevent excesses, should be under the rubric of the Eighth Amendment.This essay introduces new elements into the discussion on torts by hypothesizing (1) PDs are fines which belong to the public purse; (2) that expenditures from the public purse should be given to local organizations (like orphanages and inner-city hospitals) which provide vital services for those unable to pay; and (3) that the victim (or the victim's survivor) has a right to designate what local organizations should benefit from his or her punitive-damage awards.The hypotheses require reexamination of the concepts of citizenship, community, and work, respectively.Tort law is an integral part of the American law of injuries, a body of judicial doctrine and legislation and a set of legal arrangements that also include compensation systems and safety legislation. It would have been unthinkable as recently as twenty-five years ago that the tort system would become a source of bitter contention. Today, however, it generates sharp rhetoric and dramatic proposals for change to address its contested problems, as well as strong views in favor of continuing the system essentially intact so as not to disturb its contended benefits.
16
Likhovski, Assaf. "In Our Image: Colonial Discourse and the Anglicization of the Law of Mandatory Palestine." Israel Law Review 29, no. 3 (1995): 291–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700014692.
Full textAbstract:
My story is full of holes. The first hole, or rather, ditch, was dug in 1930 by the municipality of Haifa. An Arab, Dr. Caesar Khoury, fell into the ditch and fractured his shoulder-blade.Could Dr. Khoury recover? The law of torts of mandatory Palestine was found in the Mejelle — an Ottoman code of Moslem civil law. Did the Mejelle provide a remedy in the case of personal injury? “Unfortunately,” said Judge Francis Baker, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court of Palestine, “the Mejelle dealt with liability for damages caused by animals to property, but it was ‘silent’ with regards to injuries caused to persons”. Therefore, Dr. Khoury could not recover.The second hole in my story belongs to a Jew, Feivel Danovitz. In 1939, Danovitz was run down by a truck in Tel Aviv. He sued the driver and the owner of the truck. The lower courts of Tel Aviv decided that if the Mejelle did not deal with liability for personal injury, that meant that there was a hole in the tort law of Palestine. Such a hole could be filled by recourse to the English common law in accordance with the provisions of Article 46 of the Palestine Order-in-Council, 1922. Since the English common law recognized liability for personal injury, Danovitz could recover.
17
Rogerson, Pippa. "ECONOMIC TORTS IN THE CONFLICT OF LAWS." Cambridge Law Journal 76, no. 2 (July 2017): 240–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197317000496.
Full textAbstract:
IN AMT Futures Ltd. v Marzillier [2017] UKSC 13; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 853, the Supreme Court had to decide where a “harmful event” occurred in order to determine whether the English court had jurisdiction over the defendant, Marzillier, a German lawyer. AMT brought an action in England against Marzillier for inducing breaches of contracts made between AMT and their European clients. Although the client contracts contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts, Marzillier had encouraged the clients to bring actions against AMT in Germany. The claims were made under German law of delict alleging that AMT were accessory to the bad investment advice given by the clients’ brokers. The brokers were insolvent. The German claims were brought directly against AMT and AMT settled. It had lost on the jurisdiction question in Germany because the exclusive jurisdiction clause did not bind the clients. They were consumers. Additionally, the actions were in tort and therefore did not fall within the scope of the clause. AMT brought this action in England after paying over £2m in settlement and costs in Germany. AMT argued that Marzillier had deprived AMT of the benefit of the contractual exclusive jurisdiction agreement by inducing the clients to sue in Germany. Marzillier, a defendant domiciled in Germany, could only be sued in England if the harmful event occurred here. Lord Hodge J.S.C., giving a beautifully clear judgment, held that the case could not be heard in England. England was not the place where the harm occurred, despite payment out of an account in England and the alleged breach of the exclusive English jurisdiction agreement. He held that Germany was the place where the harm occurred under what is now Article 7(2) (ex Article 5(3)) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast (Regulation EC No 1215/2012).
18
Giliker, Paula. "A ‘new’ head of damages: damages for mental distress in the English law of torts." Legal Studies 20, no. 1 (March 2000): 19–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.2000.tb00131.x.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the ability of the claimant to recover damages for mental distress in the English law of torts. This is an area of law which has received little attention and indeed, the general impression is frequently that such damages are not recoverable. This article seeks to establish that this is far from the case and that damages are frequently awarded for mental distress even if they are not always openly recognised. Most lawyers are familiar with the award of damages for ‘suffering’ within the action for personal injury, but damages for distress are awarded generally, particularly as aggravated damages, as recognised by the Law Commission in 1997. It will be argued that much will be gained by appreciating the true nature of these damages and the policy factors which determine when the claimant will be granted such an award. Whilst there is no evidence to support a right to claim such damages in their own right, there is sufficient authority for a separate head of damages us part of the claimant's general compensatory claim. It is therefore submitted that open recognition of this head will be to the benefit of individual claimants and the system as a whole in clarifying this area of damages.
19
Majid, Abdul, Sri Yogamalar, Audrey Kim Lan Siah, Jane L. Y. Terpstra-Tong, and Luc Borrowman. "A new chapter in the law of sexual harassment in Malaysia: The emergence of the torts of harassment and sexual harassment." Common Law World Review 48, no. 4 (October 24, 2019): 191–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473779519875464.
Full textAbstract:
In a landmark case in 2016, Malaysia’s apex court, the Federal Court, explicitly recognised for the first time, the common law tort of sexual harassment. Actually, the Federal Court did more than that; its recognition of the common law tort of sexual harassment is built on its recognising the common law tort of harassment. The recognition of the tort of harassment has escaped notice because attention has been concentrated on the tort of sexual harassment. This article analyses the Federal Court’s exposition of the tort of sexual harassment to reveal that the exegesis itself acknowledges the existence of the tort of harassment per se. The tort of harassment that the Federal Court sent out into the world is largely a creature of its English common law ancestry.
20
Hartley, Trevor C. "The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 54, no. 4 (October 2005): 813–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/lei038.
Full textAbstract:
English conflict of laws is the creation of the common law. Prior to Britain's entry into the European Union, legislation played only a limited role. The few legislative measures concerning choice of law were narrowly targeted to remedy specific problems—for example the formal validity of wills, or torts. The rules for service outside the jurisdiction were a more important exception, but their practical operation largely depended on judge-made concepts and remedies, such as forum non conveniens and antisuit injunctions. The common law also provided a complete system for the recognition of foreign judgments that operated untrammelled with regard to judgments from many countries, including some of the most important, while the relevant legislation, where applicable, did little more than provide a simpler procedure.
21
Lehmann, Matthias. "Brexit and the Consequences for Commercial and Financial Relations between the EU and the UK." European Business Law Review 27, Issue 7 (December 1, 2016): 999–1027. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/eulr2016045.
Full textAbstract:
The UK’s withdrawal from the European Union will have – and already has – a dramatic impact on the political, legal and economic landscape, both in Britain and on the continent. This contribution takes a closer look at the effects on individual relationships and businesses. Against the background of the possible scenarios (British accession to the European Economic Area (EEA), bilateral trade agreement with the EU, or ‘hard’ exit with third-country status), it scrutinizes Brexit’s consequences in five areas: contract law, the law of non-contractual obligations, corporate law, financial law, and international litigation. With regard to contract law, it examines the effects on the determination of the applicable law and on substantive contract law, in particular the possibility to terminate contractual agreements. Concerning non-contractual obligations, it deals with the conflict rules applicable to torts, which may change. In the context of corporate law, the focus is on the status of companies organized under English law that are domiciled in Member States, as well as on the fate of European public companies headquartered in Britain. Insolvency matters will also be discussed. The part on financial law analyses the options for EU market access available to English banks, asset and fund managers as well as insurance companies in light of the passport granted to EEA firms and the equivalence requirements for third-country firms. As regards international litigation, the discussion turns on the post-Brexit determination of the competent court as well as the recognition and enforcement of British judgements in the EU.
22
Croucher, Richard, and Didier Michel. "“Legal at the Time”?: Companies, Governments and Reparations for Mauritian Slavery." Journal of African Law 58, no. 1 (January 28, 2014): 89–108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021855313000193.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article critiques the “legal at the time” argument used by states and companies which historically practised slavery to defend themselves against claims for restitution, examining the Mauritian case. Although slavery was largely legal there before its abolition by the British, torts were common under slavery and, during the years of historic rupture, 1794–1839, when the local élite defied first French and then English law, generated systemic unlawful activity. Most types of legal action for restitution for slavery face formidable difficulties; pursuing reparations supported by broad legal arguments may therefore be a more viable route. Slavery may be argued to have been an illegitimate endeavour in itself. While sympathetic to that view, this article does not pursue it but rather seeks to demonstrate that the “legal at the time” argument against reparations contains significant lacunae even within its restricted terms. It also shows that French constitutional law offers possibilities in the form of rights that are not time-bound.
23
Keren-Paz, Tsachi, and Nomi Levenkron. "Clients' strict liability towards victims of sex-trafficking." Legal Studies 29, no. 3 (September 2009): 438–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.2009.00131.x.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper, we argue that clients who purchase commercial sex from victims of forced prostitution should be strictly liable in torts towards the victims. Such an approach is both normatively defensible and doctrinally feasible. Fairness and equality demand that clients would compensate victims, even if one refuses to acknowledge that purchasing sex from a prostitute who might be a victim is a faulty behaviour. Clients profit from the activity of purchasing commercial sex, so fairness demands they will bear the costs they impose on victims who are unable to refuse the contact. Strict liability will bring about desirable distributive results along the lines of sex, class and race. Imposing strict liability will ensure consistency of the English law of trespass and it is supported by several instrumental considerations.Such strict liability could be grounded in battery, despite the appearance of apparent consent by the victim to sell sexual services to the client. This is so for two main reasons. First, the extreme coercion operated on the victim renders her consent void so that an innocent third party cannot rely on the appearance of consent. Secondly, the client should be considered as having constructive notice with respect to the trafficker's coercion. Our argument is supported by – but does not hinge upon accepting – the insight that the client's behaviour is ultimately faulty.
24
Witt, John Fabian. "From Loss of Services to Loss of Support: The Wrongful Death Statutes, the Origins of Modern Tort Law, and the Making of the Nineteenth-Century Family." Law & Social Inquiry 25, no. 03 (2000): 717–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2000.tb00159.x.
Full textAbstract:
The wrongful death statutes enacted in most states during the mid-nineteenth century have long represented a classic moment in the narrative of American legal history. Historians have not observed, however, that American wrongful death statutes amended the English act on which they were modeled to introduce a gender asymmetry peculiar to the United States. Led by New York, most American jurisdictions limited wrongful death actions to “the widow and next of kin” of the decedent, categories that did not include husbands of deceased wives. Thus, a wife could bring a wrongful death action for the death of her husband, but a husband could not bring a wrongful death action on his own behalf for the death of his wife. The wrongful death statutes represent a heretofore unrecognized conjuncture of the beginnings of the modem law of torts with the nineteenth-century legal reconstruction of the family. The statutes mowed accident litigation away from an eighteenth-century model of masters suing for loss of the services of a servant, slave, wife, or child, toward the now more familiar model of suits for loss of wages and support. Moreover, the gender asymmetry of the statutes embodied and reproduced a new nineteenth-century conception of the family in which men worked as free laborers and women were confined to relatively narrow domestic roles, removed from the market and dependent for their support on the wages of their husbands. Indeed, the statutes anticipated by over half a century the American welfare state's two-track approach to support for wage-earning men and dependent women.
25
Reilly, Kimberley A. "Wronged in Her Dearest Rights: Plaintiff Wives and the Transformation of Marital Consortium, 1870–1920." Law and History Review 31, no. 1 (February 2013): 61–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0738248012000703.
Full textAbstract:
In 1871, Mary Ann Harlan brought an unprecedented suit against her neighbors, Elliot and Mary Clark, before the Superior Court of Cincinnati. She alleged that they had “wrongfully and maliciously enticed away” her husband, Robert Harlan, from their home, thus depriving her of Robert's “society, protection, and support.” The common law had long given husbands the right of action to sue third parties who enticed away, harbored, alienated the affections of, or seduced their wives. In these types of marital torts, a husband sought damages for the loss of his wife's “consortium,” a term that expressed his property in her services and society. At the time of Mary Ann's suit, however, wives had no such reciprocal right. In part, this was an outcome of the common law doctrine of marital unity, or coverture, under which a wife's legal identity was merged into that of her husband upon marriage. Unable to sue or be sued, she had to be joined by him in a legal action. Courts were hardly amenable to the idea of allowing husbands to join in suits involving their own marital transgressions, where they would stand to profit from their misdeeds if any damages were awarded. More fundamentally, however, the limitation of wives' access to legal remedies was an expression of the hierarchical nature of marital unity. No less an authority than eighteenth-century English jurist William Blackstone, the most influential expositor of the common law, put the reason plainly: “the inferior hath no kind of property in the company, care, or assistance of the superior, as the superior is held to have in those of the inferior; and therefore the inferior can suffer no loss or injury.” According to this theory, a wife was not barred from bringing such a suit simply because of her legal disabilities under coverture; as a subordinate in the marriage relation, she lacked any reciprocal claim to her husband's society. Mary Ann's case, then, hinged on whether she had the right to bring her suit.
26
Bell, John. "TORT LAW AND THE MORAL LAW: ANGLO-FRENCH DIVERGENCES." Cambridge Law Journal 80, S1 (September 2021): S33—S60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197321000647.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractTunc's inaugural lecture “Tort Law and the Moral Law” in 1972 aimed to set out the moral foundations of tort liability in common law and French law. It triggered exchanges in this Journal with Hamson who challenged Tunc's views. This article explores the context of the debate and then reviews the subsequent developments of English and French law. Both systems have continued on the same path as the protagonists set out in their debate with France deepening its grounding in social solidarity as a justification for tort liability while English law sees its place only in state action or private charity.
27
Khong, Dennis W. K., and Wan-Ju Yeh. "Liability from the use of medical artificial intelligence: a comparative study of English and Taiwanese tort laws." F1000Research 10 (December 17, 2021): 1294. http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.73367.1.
Full textAbstract:
Background: Modern artificial intelligence applications are appearing in healthcare and medical practices. Artificial intelligence is used both in medical research and on patients via medical devices. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare English and Taiwanese tort laws in relation to medical artificial intelligence. Methods: The methodologies employed are legal doctrinal analysis and comparative law analysis. Results: The investigation finds that English tort law treats wrong diagnostic or wrong advice as negligent misstatement, and mishaps due to devices as a physical tort under the negligence rule. Negligent misstatement may occur in diagnosis or advisory systems, while a negligent act may occur in products used in the treatment of the patient. Product liability under English common law applies the same rule as negligence. In Taiwan, the general principles of tort law in Taiwan’s Civil Code for misstatement and negligent action apply, whereas the Consumer Protection Act provides for additional rules on product liability of traders. Conclusions: Safety regulations may be a suitable alternative to tort liability as a means to ensure the safety of medical artificial intelligence systems.
28
Balganesh, Shyamkrishna. "Property along the Tort Spectrum: Trespass to Chattels and the Anglo-American Doctrinal Divergence." Common Law World Review 35, no. 2 (April 2006): 135–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1350/clwr.2006.35.2.135.
Full textAbstract:
In attempting to apply the tort of trespass to chattels to the virtual world of the Internet, courts in the United States encountered a seemingly odd, yet significant doctrinal issue. While the traditional English action allowed for a claim without any showing of harm or damage (like it did for trespass to land), American (state) common law appeared to insist upon a showing of ‘actual damage to the chattel’ before the tort became actionable. This article undertakes a conceptual analysis of the tort of trespass to chattels, focusing on the difference between English and American common law on the requirement of actual damage. It then attempts to construct a theoretical argument for this doctrinal divergence, based on the vindicatory and corrective functions that the tort is presumed to perform and employs a transaction costs model from law and economics to rationalize the variance between the English and American versions of the tort. It concludes by noting that while there may indeed be efficiency gains to be had from the American version of the tort, the realization of the same may require greater certainty in the law's understanding of ‘damage’ and ‘harm’ than has been seen in the recent past.
29
Giliker, Paula. "Tony Weir and the Law of Tort." Journal of European Tort Law 4, no. 1 (April 2013): 63–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2013-0003.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractTony Weir was a leading figure in UK tort law who sadly passed away in December 2011. This paper examines his lasting contribution to English tort law as a scholar unafraid to speak his mind and whose incisive commentaries continue to be read by students and Supreme Court justices alike. It will focus on two areas in which Weir’s contribution was particularly significant: the treatment of claims for negligently-incurred pure economic loss and the degree to which tort law should provide a remedy for injuries resulting from risks which individuals have freely incurred. Weir’s contribution was distinctive and forcefully argued, encouraging his audience to reflect on the policy choices underlying any system of tort law.
30
Davies, Mitchell C. "Public Policy in the Cayman Islands: Driving a Cart and (Unruly) Horses Through the Recognition Legislation." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 50, no. 1 (January 2001): 133–43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/50.1.133.
Full textAbstract:
Resort to public policy in order to impugn a foreign judgment or to negate the effects of the application of foreign law has correctly been given a narrow compass by the English courts. In the sphere of common law choice of law rules in contract and tort this approach has been encouraged by the in-built forum bias of the rules themselves which reduces significantly the need for circumvention of foreign law. At common law a tort, for example, is never actionable in England unless the cause of action is recognised as a tort by English law.1 The common law choice of law rules in contract, ostensibly less parochial, are so open textured however as to leave a judge minded to apply English law rarely without legal justification for doing so. An increase in the resort by English courts to the safety mechanism of public policy is therefore anticipated by most commentators to be a direct result of placing the choice of law rules in contract and tort on a statutory footing, respectively, by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990 and the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995.2 What was achieved openly through an application of the rules themselves may now be arrived at less ingenuously by more indiscriminate resort to the mechanism of public policy. At one extreme a danger exists that public policy may become a badge of partiality resorted to for no better reason than to protect the perceived innate superiority of the forum's rules. At another, a misplaced desire to promote international comity may lead to an exclusion of public policy where it ought properly to be invoked; a balance must be struck. The delicate question of the correct weight to be accorded to the doctrine of public policy recently fell to be determined by the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands3 in Wheeler v. Wheeler.4
31
O’Callaghan, Patrick. "False Privacy and Information Games." Journal of European Tort Law 4, no. 3 (November 1, 2013): 282–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2013-0019.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis paper is a critique of false privacy, the proposition that privacy’s protective remit should extend to information that is entirely false. It argues that there are conceptual as well as doctrinal problems associated with such an action in tort law. First, drawing on the work of the American sociologist, Erving Goffman, the paper challenges the idea that the authentic self can be recognised in law. Second, the paper argues that false privacy sits uneasily with tort law’s doctrinal framework. While the paper focuses on English tort law, it pursues its lines of argument in a comparative context, exploring how German and US law give expression to false privacy.
32
Banakas, Stathis. "Liability for Incorrect Financial Information: Theory and Practice in a General Clause System and in a Protected Interests System." European Review of Private Law 7, Issue 3 (September 1, 1999): 261–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/252529.
Full textAbstract:
This paper is a comparative study of the remedies available for economic losses caused by incorrect financial advice or information in a system of extracontractual liability working with General Clauses (French law), and two other systems working with restrictive concepts of tort liability intended to relativise the protection of economic interests (English and German law). The extent to which recovery for such losses is allowed in the three legal systems is analysed and compared, and the practical significance of the conceptual differences considered. Additionally, the paper discovers the emergence of the new idea of voluntary assumption of responsibility as a foundation of tort liability serving different dogmatic and legal policy goals in English and German law.
33
Tettenborn, Andrew. "ENGLISH PUBLIC POLICY INTERNATIONALISED—AND CONVERSION CLARIFIED TOO." Cambridge Law Journal 61, no. 3 (December 11, 2002): 499–544. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197302241707.
Full text
34
Kershner, Susan Maidment. "Children v. Parents: A New Tort Duty-Situation for Psychiatric Injury?" Israel Law Review 35, no. 1 (2001): 79–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700012097.
Full textAbstract:
SummaryRecognition of liability in negligence for personal injury, whether physical or psychiatric, is a question of public policy par excellence. In English tort law, public policy is a transparent judicial requirement in fixing liability even when negligence is established otherwise. In considering the tortious liability of a local authority to children in its care, the English House of Lords has, in obiter dicta, raised doubts as a matter of public policy concerning the enforceability of claims for damages by children against a parent for emotional neglect causing psychiatric injury. In Israel, by contrast, the Supreme Court recently extended tortious liability by enforcing the parental duty of care to children through a claim for psychiatric injury. So far Israeli law is unique in this development. Variations in judicial policy concerning the recognition of claims by children for psychiatric injury are considered here, in the contexts of English tort law, and Israeli, US and European human rights law.
35
Ghandhi, P. R. "Exemplary damages in the English law of tort." Legal Studies 10, no. 2 (July 1990): 182–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-121x.1990.tb00599.x.
Full textAbstract:
At common law, the primary remedy for a successful plaintiff in an action in tort is an award of damages. The plaintiff must be put in the position in which he was before the tort was committed so far as money can do this. In many actions the principle of restitutio in integrum is a sufficient guide to the quantum of damages. But, in other cases, for example, actions for damages for personal injuries or defamation, a highly subjective element is involved. Neither personal injury nor loss of reputation is easily convertible by the use of any yardstick into an exact monetary figure.In some cases, the damages are said to be ‘at large’. This signifies that the award is not limited to the pecuniary loss that can be precisely proved. Where damages are ‘at large’, as they are, for example, in assault, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution, trespass and defamation, they may be conveniently divided into three separate elements. First, there is the compensation for the actual harm caused to the plaintiff by the defendant; in addition to any pecuniary loss specifically proved, the assessment will involve putting a monetary value on the physical hurt in assault, on curtailment of liberty in false imprisonment or malicious prosecution, on injury to reputation in defamation and on inconvenience and disturbance in trespass.
36
Oliphant, Ken. "Tort Law, Risk, and Technological Innovation in England." McGill Law Journal 59, no. 4 (August 5, 2014): 819–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/1026130ar.
Full textAbstract:
This paper considers the impact of technological innovation—and the risks arising from it—on the development of English tort law in the modern era, dating from around 1750. At a time when the old forms of action were losing their grip, unprecedented social changes resulted from the Industrial Revolution and the risks that it created. New mechanisms (insurance, regulation and social welfare) were introduced to control these risks and mitigate their effects. Tort law too was obliged to adapt, and its modern contours bear the mark of this history. However, fundamental questions about the proper function of tort law relative to alternative compensatory and regulatory mechanisms remain to be satisfactorily resolved.
37
REEKIE, Surutchada, and Adam REEKIE. "A Comparative Analysis of the Protection of Trade Names Under the English Tort of Passing Off and Section 18 of Thailand’s Civil and Commercial Code." Asian Journal of Comparative Law 11, no. 1 (May 30, 2016): 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/asjcl.2016.6.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe English common law tort of passing off came into the spotlight in 2015 with the UK Supreme Court case ofStarbucks (HK) Ltd v British Sky Broadcasting Groupsettling the current position regarding the question of the territorial scope of goodwill. This article undertakes a comparative study of the tort with Section 18 of theThai Civil and Commercial Codewhich, it argues, has been interpreted by the Thai Supreme Court to offer a materially similar remedy to the English tort in two important conceptual aspects: the requirement for misrepresentation and the so-called “hard line” approach to the territorial scope of goodwill, as affirmed byStarbucks. The analysis carries important implications for comparative lawyers and legislators in both the UK and Thailand, and challenges assumptions based on a simplistic categorization of Thailand as a civil law jurisdiction.
38
Giliker, Paula. "CODIFICATION, CONSOLIDATION, RESTATEMENT? HOW BEST TO SYSTEMISE THE MODERN LAW OF TORT." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 70, no. 2 (March 26, 2021): 271–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589321000087.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.
39
Blanco, Elena Merino, and Ben Pontin. "Litigating Extraterritorial Nuisances under English Common Law and UK Statute." Transnational Environmental Law 6, no. 2 (December 20, 2016): 285–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2047102516000303.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractEnglish common law and United Kingdom legislation provide various – overall liberal – jurisdictional grounds for hearing foreign tort claims. The article examines these grounds with reference to recent and ongoing oil pollution nuisance litigation involving Royal Dutch Shell Plc and its Nigerian subsidiary operating in the Niger Delta. Particular attention is given to the factors taken into account by the court in exercising its discretion to allow service out of the jurisdiction in cases of pollution taking place abroad under the principle offorum non conveniens. Following the widely commented decision of the United States Supreme Court inKiobelv.Royal Dutch Petroleum Corporation, which ruled against the extraterritorial application of the Alien Tort Statute, it is easy to forget that the rules of jurisdiction vary from country to country and that different legal systems apply similar concepts in often radically different ways. Attention is also given to the future development of English jurisdictional law and practice in the context of environmental nuisance.
40
Zhou, Qi. "A Deterrence Perspective on Damages for Fraudulent Misrepresentation." Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics 19, no. 1 (October 2007): 83–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/02601079x07001900106.
Full textAbstract:
The purposes of this paper are twofold. First, it provides a theoretical framework for understanding the deterrence function of damages as a private legal remedy for fraudulent misrepresentation, explains, from an economic perspective, why fraudulent misrepresentation is socially undesirable, and then shows how the damages rule can be used as a deterrence instrument. Second, it conducts a brief analysis of the deterrence of fraudulent misrepresentation in English tort law and argues that, despite some imperfections, damages in tort law can provide a valuable complement to some traditional deterrence sanctions to fraud such as criminal law and regulation.
41
Oliva, Javier García, and Helen Hall. "Trespass to the Person, Human Rights and Ethically Contaminated Food: Freedom of Belief and Bodily Autonomy." Journal of European Tort Law 10, no. 1 (May 14, 2019): 27–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jetl-2019-0102.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThis article explores the specific question of protection which tort law in England and Wales affords to individuals who are victims of ethical spiking (consumption of food contaminated by malicious third parties which is physically harmless, but repugnant to their religion or beliefs), and moves on to analyse the wider implications for the possible evolution of trespass to the person, and the relationship between tort and human rights law in the UK. Although not a comparative piece, it draws on some features of the Spanish paradigm which illustrate significant benefits of developing the law in the English context in the manner suggested.
42
Sanger, Andrew. "Corporations and Transnational Litigation: Comparing Kiobel with the Jurisprudence of English Courts." AJIL Unbound 107 (2013): 23–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s239877230000965x.
Full textAbstract:
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., claims brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) must “touch and concern the territory of the United States … with sufficient force” for federal courts to recognize a federal common law cause of action for violations of international law.
43
Stychin, Carl F. "The vulnerable subject of negligence law." International Journal of Law in Context 8, no. 3 (August 23, 2012): 337–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1744552312000249.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe approach taken by English courts to the duty of care question in negligence has been subject to harsh criticism in recent years. This article examines this fundamental issue in tort law, drawing upon Canadian and Australian jurisprudence by way of comparison. From this analysis, the concept of vulnerability is developed as a productive means of understanding the duty of care. Vulnerability is of increasing interest in legal and political theory and it is of particular relevance to the law of negligence. In addition to aiding doctrinal coherence, vulnerability – with its focus on relationships and care – has the potential to broaden the way in which the subject of tort law is conceived because it challenges dominant assumptions about autonomy as being prior to the relationships on which it is dependent.
44
Jeffers, Raymond. "The Prohibition of Workplace Sexual Harassment in English Law." International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 7, no. 1-4 (September 2005): 253–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/135822910500700410.
Full textAbstract:
This paper explores some of the legal remedies open to a claimant who has been a victim of gender-based sexual harassment. It begins with an examination of the legal meaning of ‘sexual harassment’. The principal law currently used by claimants, namely statutory sex discrimination, is then reviewed in depth. Other possible legal claims under statutory, common and criminal law are looked at next. The prospective statutory tort of sexual harassment derived from the European Community' Equal Treatment Amendment Directive is outlined. Measures to reduce employer liability are also considered. Despite the number of ways, in both civil law and criminal law, through which redress for sexual harassment may be claimed, in the absence of specific statutory law on sexual harassment English courts are essentially embarking on an exercise of trying to fit round pegs into square holes.
45
Mcgrath, Colm Peter. "The End of Expert Witnesses Immunity." European Review of Private Law 21, Issue 4 (August 1, 2013): 1065–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/erpl2013061.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: This article examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Jones v. Kaney concerning arguments about the continued existence of an immunity from suit in tort enjoyed by expert witnesses in English law. It sets out the nature and role of the expert witness in the English common law before analysing the matrix of immunities that have attached to those involved in the judicial process throughout English legal history. It then examines the declining scope and protection offered by these immunities and contextualises the decision in Jones as part of this broader trend.
46
Murphy, John. "Expectation Losses, Negligent Omissions and the Tortious Duty of Care." Cambridge Law Journal 55, no. 1 (March 1996): 43–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0008197300097725.
Full textAbstract:
In English law, the recovery of pure economic loss falls mainly within the province of the law of contract. Only in very limited circumstances does the law of tort provide for the recovery of such losses. As Cardozo C.J. explained in Ultramares Corporation v. Touched, tort is concerned not to permit “liability in an indeterminate amount, for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”. Notwithstanding this reticence, their Lordships' speeches, though not the final decision, in the seminal case of Hedley Byrne & Co. Ltd. v. Heller and Partners Ltd. provided a notable inroad into the rigidity of this stance. Since Hedley Byrne, the question has become, instead, how far, not if, pure economic loss is and should be recoverable in the law of negligence.
47
Bailey, James. "Aggravated Damages or Additional Awards of Solatium: A Distinction without a Difference?" Edinburgh Law Review 22, no. 1 (January 2018): 29–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/elr.2018.0454.
Full textAbstract:
What are aggravated damages? Can they be recovered under Scots law? These are questions which might cross the mind of a Scots lawyer upon noticing the label in a tort textbook or the English case reports. This article seeks to address these two questions, in addition to critically examining whether aggravated damages ought to be recognised north of the border. The article will show that the Scots courts have granted additional awards of solatium in circumstances where the English courts would likely award aggravated damages. It will be argued that, despite their similarities, this traditional Scots approach is preferable to the English aggravated damages model. While the central focus is the right approach for Scots law, the article may still be of interest to English lawyers, since there are signs that English law might be moving closer to the Scots position.
48
Sanger, Andrew. "REVIEW OF EXECUTIVE ACTION ABROAD: THE UK SUPREME COURT IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ORDER." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 68, no. 1 (January 2019): 35–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0020589318000374.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractIn January 2017, the UK Supreme Court handed down landmark judgments in three cases arising out of the UK government's conduct abroad. In Serdar Mohammed v Ministry of Defence, the Court considered whether detention in non-international armed conflicts was compatible with the right of liberty in Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The second case, Belhaj v Straw, involved an examination of the nature and scope of the foreign act of State doctrine, and its applicability as a defence to tort claims arising out of the alleged complicity of the UK Government in human rights abuses abroad. Finally, Rahmatullah v Ministry of Defence saw the Court examining the nature and scope of the Crown act of State doctrine, and its use as a defence to tort claims alleging unlawful detention and maltreatment. All three cases raise important doctrinal issues and have significant consequences for government accountability and access to a judicial remedy. At the heart of each decision is the relationship between international law and English law, including the ways in which international norms influence the development of English law and public policy, and how different interpretations of domestic law affect how judges resolve questions of international law. These cases also see the judges grapple with the role of the English court in the UK constitutional and international legal orders.
49
Cornford, Tom. "THE PUBLIC LAW DIMENSION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY LIABILITY." Denning Law Journal 25, no. 1 (October 11, 2013): 129–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.5750/dlj.v25i1.623.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper I endorse the basic assumption that informed the Law Commission’s consultation paper on Administrative Redress of 2008, namely that the problem of administrative liability in English law can only be understood by examining both its tortious and its public law dimensions and that a satisfactory solution would involve a form of liability that straddled the public/private divide. In support of this view, I advance a rationale for a form of liability that involves reparation for harms resulting from acts unlawful as a matter of public law and argue that the form of liability that the rationale supports would inevitably impinge upon the territory currently occupied by the law of tort. I then proceed to criticise the views of scholars who have recently argued that a satisfactory law of public authority liability can be arrived at by the use of the concepts of orthodox tort law alone.
50
Cooke, Robin. "The Road Ahead for the Common Law." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 53, no. 2 (April 2004): 273–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/iclq/53.2.273.
Full textAbstract:
In the 1996 Hamlyn Lectures, under the title Turning Points of the Common Law, I examined four great cases where the House of Lords set the law of England, and consequently the law of most of the English-speaking world, on a new course by reversing decisions of the courts below. They were Salomon v Salomon & Co Ltd1 (insistence on separate identities of company and controlling shareholder); Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecutions2 (discovery of a golden thread about onus of proof in English criminal law); Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller3 (qualified acceptance of duty of care in tort to safeguard against economic damage); and Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission4 (affirmation that material errors of law by administrative bodies are alwaysredressible by courts).