scholarly journals Implications of the New Rule Against Penalties

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 305
Author(s):  
Jessica Palmer
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
High Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Contractual Term ◽  
High Court Of Australia

Whether a contractual term is penal and therefore unenforceable has usually been determined by distinguishing it from stipulations that are a reasonable contemplation of loss resulting from breach. This article considers recent decisions of the High Court of Australia and the United Kingdom Supreme Court that have made significant revisions of the rule. Both Courts have diverged from the traditional formulation and, to some extent, from each other. I argue that the traditional rule against penalties reflects foundational principles of contract law and not merely notions of fairness or justice in the round. The recent revisions to the rule have implications for the role and boundaries of contract law more generally and reflect increasing attention being paid to the "performance interest".

A Supreme Court for the United Kingdom? A view from the High Court of Australia

Legal Studies ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 188-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracey Stevens ◽  
George Williams
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Political System ◽  
High Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
High Court Of Australia

The High Court created by Australia's 1901 Constitution first sat on 6 October 1903. A century on, it is an apt time to consider how the record of the Court can contribute a different perspective to the debate over a possible Supreme Court for the United Kingdom. Of course, it cannot be assumed that common views are held of this record. Indeed, the role of the High Court and its place in the Australian political system remains hotly contested.

Termination by Mistake, Contract Terms and Damages: Bunge SA v Nidera BV

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Akhileshwar Pathak
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
General Conditions

Business contracts are done on General Conditions of Contracts (GCC). The GCCs have detailed terms to displace general principles of contract law and bring certainty in commercial dealings. Bunge SA v Nidera BV, is a judgment of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, on damages terms in GCCs. A term on damages may not be a comprehensive code, answering all questions on damages. In this case, the general principles will survive and interact and interface with the contract terms to settle the rights and obligations of the parties.

scholarly journals The Limits of Arbitration Law in Addressing Cultural Diversity: The Example of Ismaili Arbitration in the United Kingdom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Sandrine Brachotte
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Cultural Studies ◽  
Cultural Diversity ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
The Other ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Arbitration Clause ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Employment Equality

This article studies religious arbitration from the perspective of global legal pluralism, which embraces both normative plurality and cultural diversity. In this context, the article considers that UK arbitration law regulates both commercial and religious arbitration while relying on a monist conception of arbitration. It further identifies two intertwined issues regarding cultural diversity, which find their source in this monist conception. Firstly, through the study of Jivraj v. Hashwani ([2011] UKSC 40), this article shows that the governance of religious arbitration may generate a conflict between arbitration law and equality law, the avoidance of which can require sacrificing the objectives of one or the other branch of law. The Jivraj case concerned an Ismaili arbitration clause, requiring that all arbitrators be Ismaili—a clause valid under arbitration law but potentially not under employment-equality law. To avoid such conflict, the Supreme Court reduced the scope of employment-equality law, thereby excluding self-employed persons. Secondly, based on cultural studies of law, this article shows that the conception of arbitration underlying UK arbitration law is ill-suited to make sense of Ismaili arbitration. In view of these two issues, this article argues that UK arbitration law acknowledges normative multiplicity but fails to embrace the cultural diversity entangled therewith.

scholarly journals Insurance related problems in bareboat charter agreements

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Albano Gilabert Gascón
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Insurance Contract ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The One ◽  
The Baltic ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn 2017, the majority of the United Kingdom Supreme Court held in its judgment in the Gard Marine and Energy v China National Chartering (The Ocean Victory) case that, in bareboat charters under the ‘BARECON 89’ form, if both the owner and the charterer are jointly insured under a hull policy, the damages caused to the vessel by the charterer cannot be claimed by the insurer by way of subrogation after indemnifying the owner. The interpretation of the charter party leads to the conclusion that the liability between the parties is excluded. Faced with the Supreme Court’s decision, the Baltic and International Maritime Council (BIMCO) adopted a new standard bareboat charter agreement only a few months later, the ‘BARECON 2017’ form, which amends, among other clauses, the one related to insurance. The present paper analyses (i) the new wording of the clause mentioned above and (ii) its incidence on the relationship between the parties of both the charter agreement and the insurance contract and its consequences for possible third parties. Despite BIMCO’s attempt to change the solution adopted by the Supreme Court and his willingness to allow the insurer to claim in subrogation against the person who causes the loss, the consequences, as it will be seen, do not differ much in practice when the wrongdoer is the co-insured charterer. On the contrary, when the loss is caused by a time charter or a sub-charter, in principle, there will be no impediment for the insurer to sue him.

Media Arbitration Schemes: Addressing the Backlog of Defamation Cases in Malaysia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Imaduddin Suhaimi
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
High Court ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Alternative Proposal ◽  
Salient Features

Abstract The rise in defamation claims in Malaysia has placed an onerous workload on the courts to deal with such matters. Against this backdrop, Hamid Sultan Abu Backer JC (as his Lordship then was) (Hamid Sultan JC) suggested in two separate High Court decisions that to alleviate the courts’ burden, matters pertaining to libel and slander ought to be constrained to the criminal courts through appropriate statutory amendments, including to the Criminal Procedure Code (Malaysia). In this paper, the author cautions against the learned Hamid Sultan JC's recommendations and proffers an alternative proposal in the form of media arbitration schemes to handle the growing influx of defamation claims. In particular, the salient features of the IMPRESS and IPSO Schemes from the United Kingdom are scrutinised in detail and measured in terms of suitability for a potential arbitration scheme in the Malaysian jurisdiction.

Equity and certainty in contract law

Acta Juridica ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 141-176
Author(s):  
F Brand
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
High Court ◽  
Contractual Relationships ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Do So

The role of abstract values such as equity and fairness in our law of contract has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. In 2002 the Supreme Court of Appeal took the position that these values do not constitute self-standing grounds for interfering with contractual relationships. Despite this being consistently maintained by the SCA in a number of cases, some High Court judges deviated from this position on the basis that they were permitted to do so by some minority judgments and obiter dicta in the Constitutional Court. The uncertainty thus created has fortunately now been removed by the judgment of the Constitutional Court in Beadica v The Trustees for the Time being of the Oregon Trust.

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.

scholarly journals Dallah: the death knell for deference?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Anastasia Lee Fraser
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
De Novo ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
English Court ◽  
Arbitral Award ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
New York Convention

<p>This paper examines the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Company v The Minister of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, a rare case where an English court refused enforcement of an international arbitral award under the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention).  Although in Dallah the United Kingdom Supreme Court acknowledged the trend to limit reconsideration of the findings of arbitral tribunals in fact and in law, the Court considered it was bound to decide the question of validity de novo. Contrary to the tribunal, the Court held the arbitration agreement was not valid under the law to which it was subject and refused enforcement of the arbitral award.  This paper analyses how the English Supreme Court decided the legal issues before it. It concludes the English court could have reached the same decision on a more convincing basis. Even where the issue is initial consent, holding the court at the place of enforcement is always bound to decide a matter de novo neither serves the objectives of international commercial arbitration nor is necessary to promote the fundamental integrity of arbitral proceedings.</p>

Surrogacy and public policy

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (3) ◽  
pp. 588-595
Author(s):  
Elaine O’Callaghan
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Commercial Surrogacy ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Law

The Supreme Court in the United Kingdom has held that it is not contrary to public policy to award damages in tort to fund a commercial surrogacy in another jurisdiction where this is lawful. This significant decision, in the case of Whittington Hospital NHS Trust v XX [2020] UKSC 14, will potentially have an impact on the regulation and reform of surrogacy law in the United Kingdom, Ireland and internationally. The judgment delivered by Lady Hale draws attention to multiple inconsistencies in the law, and it highlights, in particular, the need for effective regulation of domestic surrogacy. Legislators face an important and imminent challenge to reconcile the reality of commercial surrogacy with a deficient legal framework. This article seeks to highlight some of the important issues which this case has raised when considering regulation and reform of surrogacy law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document