The Contemporary Use of Legislative History in the United Kingdom

1995 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 127-152 ◽  
Author(s):  
T.J.N. Bates
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Significant Variation ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
The United Kingdom

The use of legislative history by the courts as an aid to the construction and interpretation of statutory provisions has an extensive common law history. This has encompassed significant variation in judicial approach, perhaps reflecting changing constitutional relationships. Where principles have emerged they have been somewhat inconsistently applied, no doubt because courts have a residual competence to regulate their own procedure which is only loosely regulated by superior courts.

scholarly journals The slow death of a dogma? The prohibition of legislative history in the 20th century

2020 ◽  
pp. 147377952096795
Author(s):  
John J Magyar
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
20Th Century ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Statutory Interpretation ◽  
Legislative History ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
The 1960S ◽  
State Of Affairs

It is commonly believed that the rule prohibiting reliance on legislative history as an aid to statutory interpretation was firmly in place in the United Kingdom, and indeed throughout the English-speaking common law jurisdictions of the world, long before the turn of the 20th century; and that the rule was set aside in the case of Pepper v Hart in 1992. However, an examination of the relevant cases and the canonical textbooks by Maxwell and Craies reveal that the rule was subject to a significant amount of disagreement at the turn of the 20th century, particularly with respect to the admissibility of commissioners’ reports to uncover the mischief of a statutory provision. This disagreement would not be completely resolved until the 1960s. With respect to other types of legislative history, there were prominent exceptional cases over the course of the 20th century; and there was a gradual acceptance of more types of legislative history as aids to statutory interpretation during the decades leading up to Pepper v Hart. Thus, the simple narrative description that the rule was firmly in place until it was set aside in 1992 must give way to a more complex narrative of disagreement and gradual decline. Meanwhile, as the rule lost traction in the United Kingdom over the course of the 20th century, a growing accumulation of justifications for the rule has been assembled, and an ongoing debate has been taking place about the efficacy of reliance on legislative history. Based upon the different trajectories followed in other English-speaking common law jurisdictions, and particularly the United States, the decline of the rule was not inevitable. It follows that the current state of affairs is likely to change over time.

The Implementation of Constitutional Reform in the United Kingdom: Principles and Problems

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 551-564
Author(s):  
Dawn Oliver
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Constitutional Reform ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Common ◽  
Executive Agencies ◽  
The Relationship

First, I want to express my gratitude and sense of honour in being invited to deliver the Lionel Cohen lecture for 1995. The relationship between the Israeli and the British legal systems is a close and mutually beneficial one, and we in Britain in particular owe large debts to the legal community in Israel. This is especially the case in my field, public law, where distinguished academics have enriched our academic literature, notably Justice Zamir, whose work on the declaratory judgment has been so influential. Israeli courts, too, have made major contributions to the development of the common law generally and judicial review very notably.In this lecture I want to discuss the process of constitutional reform in the United Kingdom, and to explore some of the difficulties that lie in the way of reform. Some quite radical reforms to our system of government — the introduction of executive agencies in the British civil service, for instance—have been introduced without resort to legislation. There has been a spate of reform to local government and the National Health Service.

scholarly journals Default and Termination of Contract: A comparative Study between Indonesia and The United Kingdom

Yuridika ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 469
Author(s):  
Akhmad Budi Cahyono
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Comparative Studies ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Contractual Relationship ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
The Right

Default is something that often occurs in contractual relationship. It can be not perform its obligations in the contract in all or in a part, performing its obligations but not in accordance with was agreed, performing its obligations but not in time, and performing something that is prohibited in the contract. Due to default, the injured party may claim compensation and / or terminate the contract. The problem is, the Indonesian Civil Code does not specify how a contract can be terminated in case of default. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct a comparative study in other countries in terms of how a default can terminate the contract. The British which adopt common law tradition where jurisprudence is the main source of law is the right choice for conducting comparative studies. Countries with common law traditions have detailed legal rules based on jurisprudence. As in Indonesia, according to British contract law, defaults also can terminate the contract. However, unlike in Indonesia, according to British contract law, termination due to a default is only allowed in the event that the default is very serious. The very serious forms of default will be elaborated and become a part of the discussion in this paper.

Conclusion The American and Westminster Models

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-396
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Of Emergency ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
European Court

This concluding chapter identifies the four major causes of the growth and origin of judicial review in the G-20 common law countries and in Israel. First, the need for a federalism umpire, and occasionally a separation of powers umpire, played a major role in the development of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in the United States, in Canada, in Australia, in India, and most recently in the United Kingdom. Second, there is a rights from wrongs phenomenon at work in the growth of judicial review in the United States, after the Civil War; in Canada, with the 1982 adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; in India, after the Indira Gandhi State of Emergency led to a massive trampling on human rights; in Israel, after the Holocaust; in South Africa, after racist apartheid misrule; and in the United Kingdom, after that country accumulated an embarrassing record before the European Court of Human Rights prior to 1998. This proves that judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation often occurs in response to a deprivation of human rights. Third, the seven common law countries all borrowed a lot from one another, and from civil law countries, in writing their constitutions. Fourth, and finally, the common law countries all create multiple democratic institutions or political parties, which renders any political attempt to strike back at the Supreme Court impossible to maintain.

Introduction The Birth and Growth of Judicial Review in the Civil Law World

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
South Africa ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The Political ◽  
The United Kingdom

This book is about the stunning birth and growth of judicial review in the civil law world, since 1945. In Volume I of this two-volume series, I showed that judicial review was born and grew in common law G-20 constitutional democracies and in Israel primarily: (1) when there is a need for a federalism or a separation of powers umpire, (2) when there is a rights from wrongs dynamic, (3) when there is borrowing, and (4) when the political structure of a country’s institutions leaves space within which the judiciary can operate. The countries discussed in Volume I were the following: (1) the United States, (2) Canada, (3) Australia, (4) India, (5) Israel, (6) South Africa, and (7) the United Kingdom....

The Actuarial Aspects of Recent Legislation, in the United Kingdom and other Countries, on the subject of Compensation to Workmen for Accidents

1902 ◽  
Vol 36 (5-6) ◽  
pp. 417-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Nicoll
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Early Period ◽  
Jewish Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common

The liability of the employer to compensate his employees, as well as other persons, for injuries sustained through his fault, may be traced from an early period in the world's history in the Common Law of various countries.For example, by the Jewish Law, said to have been promulgated about the year 1500 B.C., if a master were the means of causing the loss, either intentionally or unintentionally, of the eye or of the tooth of his slave, he was bound to let him go free for his eye or his tooth's sake. Again, according to the same law, if an employer allowed his ox to gore either his servant or a stranger, he was required to pay various compensations to the injured if he survived, or to his relatives in the event of the injury being followed by death.

Perspectives of law and culture on the end-of-life legislations in France, Germany, India, Italy and United Kingdom

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Cultural Backgrounds ◽  
Law System ◽  
Life Study ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Legislative Changes

The interactions between law and culture in addressing the legal problems at the end of a life are currently being discussed in many countries. The discourse on this issue should be multidisciplinary, taking into account its legal, medical, ethical, philosophical and anthropological aspects. The concepts designed to manage the legal problems that occur when a life comes to an end are closely linked to the culture of each country. For this reason, countries with different cultural backgrounds have been selected for this comparative end-of-life study. In France, Germany and Italy, which have a continental legal system, the United Kingdom, which has a common law system, and India, the various religions and cultures exert an important influence on the modernisation of the legislation in this respect. The book deals with recent legislative changes and developments in the countries surveyed. With contributions by Soazick Kerneis, Guillaume Le Blanc, Jeanne Mesmin d’Estienne, Louis-Charles Viossat, Christophe Pacific, Volker Lipp, Christine Laquitaine, Philippe Poulain, Stephanie Rohlfing-Dijoux, Stefano Canestrari, Kartina A. Choong, Richard Law, Sabine Boussard, Prasannanshu Prasannanshu, Pierre Rosario Domingue, Arvin Halkhoree, Kerstin Peglow, Jörg Luther, Uwe Hellmann, Géraldine Demme, Sabir Kadel, Anja van Bernum, Marie Rossier, Victoria Roux, Charles Walleit, Berquis Bestvater

The Role of Evidence in War Crimes Trials: the Common Law and the Yugoslav Tribunal

1999 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 307-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Bryan ◽  
Peter Rowe
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Attorney General ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
War Crimes Trials ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Time Part ◽  
Second World

With the passing into law of the War Crimes Act of 1991, the United Kingdom joined common law states such as Canada and Australia in conferring upon its domestic courts jurisdiction to try individuals suspected of having committed war crimes in Europe during the Second World War. Under the 1991 Act, proceedings for murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide may be brought, with the consent of the Attorney-General, against any person who, on 8 March 1990 or later, became a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom, providing that the offence charged is alleged to have been committed between 1 September 1939 and 4 June 1945 in a place which was, at the material time, part of Germany or under German occupation. The Act further provides that the offence charged must have constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war under international law at the time it was committed. In addition, the Act stipulates that the nationality of the alleged offender at the time the alleged offence was committed is immaterial.

Rubin v. Eurofinance SA (U.K. Sup. Ct.)

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 623-658
Author(s):  
Charles Camp ◽  
Theresa Bowman
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Default Judgment ◽  
Court Of Appeal

In October 2012, the United Kingdom Supreme Court (the Court), by a 4-1 majority, signaled a sweeping return to a more traditional approach to the enforceability of foreign judgments in avoidance in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA. The Court rejected the more liberal rule previously advocated by the Court of Appeal, which gave English courts discretion to allow enforcement of in personam judgments in avoidance where they were related to insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. The central issue in Rubin v. Eurofinance was whether an in personam judgment, entered in default but made as part of, or pursuant to, insolvency or bankruptcy proceedings abroad could be enforced at English common law. The Court held that the American default judgment at issue in Rubin was not enforceable in English courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document