scholarly journals Are essay mills committing fraud? A further analysis of their behaviours vs the 2006 fraud act (UK)

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Draper ◽  
Callum Reid-Hutchings
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Lead Author ◽  
Contract Cheating ◽  
The Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Action ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Advertising Standards

AbstractMany strategies have been proposed to address the supply of bespoke essays and other assignments by companies often described as ‘Essay Mills’ with the act of supply and use being invariably described as ‘contract cheating’. These proposals increasingly refer to the law as a solution in common with other action. In this article, the lead author revisits work undertaken in 2016 as a result of recent legal and extra-legal developments to assess whether the UK Fraud Act (2006) might now be used to tackle some of the activities of the companies involved, by comparing their common practises, and their Terms and Conditions, with the Act. It was previously found that all sites have disclaimers regarding the use of their products but there were some obvious contradictions in the activities of the sites which undermined those disclaimers, for example plagiarism-free guarantees for the work. In this article, we ask and consider the question whether this is still the case having regard to the impact of a change in the law by the UK supreme court and recent action of the UK Advertising Standards Authority. We also consider whether a call for a new offence to be created which specifically targets the undesirable behaviours of these companies is still justified.

Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2014: Reframing the judicial diversity debate: personal values and tacit diversity

Legal Studies ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-29 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel J Cahill-O'Callaghan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Personal Values ◽  
Psychological Theory ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

It has long been argued that the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, now the UK Supreme Court, is characterised by Justices who are white and male, with a public school and Oxbridge education. Despite continuous debate and reflection on the lack of diversity, by academics, government and the popular press, little has changed. These debates have centred on explicit diversity, overt characteristics that are easily codified and reflect how the judiciary is seen. Drawing on the psychological theory of decision making, this paper argues that judicial decisions are subject to tacit influences that are not limited to overt characteristics. Personal values serve as one such tacit influence on decision making. Personal values are formed by life experiences and reflect many of the characteristics identified within the explicit diversity debates. However, personal values are influenced by more than simple demographic variables. This paper uses the example of personal values to highlight the fact that despite the lack of explicit diversity, there is an element of tacit diversity in the Supreme Court, which is reflected in judicial decisions. The impact of these findings serves to extend the debates surrounding diversity, highlighting the limitation of debates centred on explicit diversity alone.

Important Bermuda trust decision concerning settlor’s wishes

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (8) ◽  
pp. 861-863
Author(s):  
Keith Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Important Decision ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Relevant Consideration

Abstract The intersection between the court’s power to bless the decision of a trustee and the impact of a settlor’s wishes on trustee decision-making has recently been considered by the Supreme Court of Bermuda in the important decision of In the Matter of the R Trust. In blessing the decision of the trustee in this case, the court referred with approval of the dicta of the UK Supreme Court in Pitt v Holt that the settlor’s wishes are simply a “relevant consideration”.

Unifying and defining ‘dishonesty’ in the law of trusts

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 429-444
Author(s):  
Zixin Jiang
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Contexts ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Abstract In this article, I argue that ‘dishonesty’ should be unified and defined in the law of trusts. I argue: (1) the UK Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos was correct to reject the Ghosh test for dishonesty and to endorse the Royal Brunei test for all legal contexts; (2) the present law on trustee exemption clauses is inconsistent with Ivey, and Walker v Stones must accordingly be overruled; (3) the subjective factors relevant to dishonesty are reducible to a person’s intentions and beliefs; and (4) ‘dishonest’ assistance of a breach of trust should be defined more precisely in terms of what knowledge is required to hold a defendant liable.

Comparing the institutional constructive trust with the remedial constructive trust

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 919-938
Author(s):  
David K L Raphael
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The State ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Court Of Australia

Abstract The concept of the Institutional Constructive Trust was first recognised in Australia in 1907 by the most senior court, i.e. the High Court of Australia, in Black v S Friedman & Co. This arose in a decision involving stolen funds. Its importance was addressed in the State of Victoria in Nolan v Nolan where what was in issue involved the Limitations Act of the State of Victoria. It must be appreciated that in the Commonwealth of Australia, State Acts can, and sometimes do, differ. In 1985, in Muschinski v Dodds, Deane J of the Australian High Court placed different emphasis on the court’s ability to recognise and construe such a trust and gave it the imprimatur of “Remedial Constructive Trust”. The latter, whilst adopted in New Zealand and Canada, has had what might fairly be described as its critics in the UK and, indeed the UK Supreme Court in FHR European Venture LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC has stated at [47] that the remedial constructive trust is not part of the law of the UK.

REFLECTIVE LOSS IN THE UK SUPREME COURT

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 411-414
Author(s):  
Stephen Laing
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Micula v Romania between International Investment Law and European Law – The UK Supreme Court Judgement – the Final or the NEXT PIece of the Puzzle?

De Jure ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Steliyana Zlateva ◽  
◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
International Investment ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
International Investment Law ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Law ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

The Judgement of the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court in the long Micula v. Romania investment treaty dispute confirmed that the arbitral awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), rendered by tribunals established under intra-EU BITs, could be enforced in the UK. The Micula case concerns the interplay between the obligations under the ICSID Convention and EU law. In particular, it addresses the question of whether the award obtained by the Micula brothers against Romania constitutes state aid prohibited by EU law, as well as the enforcement obligations under the ICSID Convention in view of the EU duty of sincere cooperation.

Product Liability

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fairgrieve Duncan ◽  
Richard Goldberg
Keyword(s):  
Strict Liability ◽  
Product Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Financial Loss ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
The Usa ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

Product Liability is a recognised authority in the field and covers the product liability laws through which manufacturers, retailers, and others may be held liable to compensate persons who are injured, or who incur financial loss, when the products which they manufacture or sell are defective or not fit for their purpose. Product defects may originate in the production process, be one of design, or be grounded in a failure to issue an adequate warning or directions for safe use and practitioners advising business clients or claimants will find this book provides all the necessary information for practitioners to manage a product liability claim. This new edition has been fully updated to take account of 10 years of development in case law and regulation, and the increasing impact of cross-border and transnational sale of goods. The Court of Justice of the European Union handed down major rulings concerning the Product Liability Directive which affect the application of the Directive and national arrangements and Fairgrieve and Goldberg examines this in detail. For any legal practitioner operating in areas which require knowledge of European product liability law, an understanding of the impact of recent developments is essential and this work is an essential resource for practitioners working on product liability, sale of goods, personal injury and negligence. The work provides comprehensive coverage of the law of negligence as it applies to product liability, of the strict liability provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987, and of the EU's Product Liability Directive on which the Act is based. Although the majority of cases involve pharmaceuticals and medical devices, in recent English cases the allegedly defective products have been as diverse as a child's buggy, an All Terrain Vehicle, and even a coffee cup. Many cases are brought as group actions, and the book examines the rights of those who are injured by defective products. As well as considering the perspective of the law as it has developed in the UK, this edition contains detailed discussion of case law from other jurisdictions including the USA, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, France and Germany. The coverage in the work is complemented by a full analysis of issues which arise in transnational litigation involving problems of jurisdiction and the choice of laws.

The constitutional influence of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the UK apex court: institutional proximity and jurisprudential divergence?

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Roger Masterman
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
Proportionality Test ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Relationship

It is often claimed that the constitutional role of the UK’s apex court is enriched as a result of the experiences of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as interpreter of constitutions within its overseas jurisdiction. This paper considers the relationship between the House of Lords/UK Supreme Court and the Judicial Committee and its effect on the importation of external influences into the UK’s legal system(s), further seeking to assess how far the jurisprudence of the Judicial Committee has influenced constitutional decision-making in the UK apex court. While ad hoc citation of Privy Council authorities in House of Lords/Supreme Court decisions is relatively commonplace, a post-1998 enthusiasm for reliance on Judicial Committee authority – relating to (i) a ‘generous and purposive’ approach to constitutional interpretation and (ii) supporting the developing domestic test for proportionality – quickly faded. Both areas are illustrative of a diminishing reliance on Judicial Committee authority, but reveal divergent approaches to constitutional borrowing as the UK apex court has incrementally mapped the contours of an autochthonous constitutionalism while simultaneously recognising the trans-jurisdictional qualities of the proportionality test.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document