Transplanting Irrationality from Public to Private Law: Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Himsworth
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The One ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
High Degree ◽  
Discretionary Powers

For many years, similarities have been noticed between the motivations for, and the methods of, controlling the exercise of discretionary powers on the one hand, in public law and, on the other hand, in contract law. There has, however, been much disagreement about how far the two processes should aligned, and whether the grounds of review in public law should be extended into the contractual domain. In Braganza v BP Shipping Ltd [2015] UKSC 17, the UK Supreme Court sought a high degree of alignment through the adoption, in a contractual dispute, of public law standards of reasonableness. This article offers a critique of the Court's arguments in the case and its consequences for contract law.

scholarly journals Crown act of state and detention in Afghanistan

2020 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-133
Author(s):  
Jane Rooney
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Executive Action ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

The Serdar Mohammed litigation signalled a decisive change in judicial attitude towards scrutiny of extraterritorial executive action in armed conflict. The most significant indicator of a change in judicial attitude was the reinstatement of the act of state doctrine in the private law claim in tort. Act of state bars tort claims against the Crown when the Crown acts outside of its territory. The UK Supreme Court characterised act of state as a non-justiciability doctrine. The article argues that the UK Supreme Court exercised extreme deference in its adjudication of the act of state in the private law claim. This deference was then mirrored in the reasoning employed in the public law claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, departing from international and domestic standards on detention in armed conflict.

scholarly journals Judicial leadership on the UK Supreme Court

Legal Studies ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 191-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rosemary Hunter ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Quantitative Data ◽  
Community Leadership ◽  
The Other ◽  
Three Dimensions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Substantial Degree

AbstractThis paper examines judicial leadership on the UK Supreme Court. It does not confine itself to the formal roles of the President and Deputy President. Rather, building on existing categories of judicial leadership, including administrative, jurisprudential and community leadership, it considers the contributions of all 12 Justices. In so doing, it provides a significant compilation of quantitative data on the activities of the Justices of the Supreme Court both on and off the bench from the the Court's inception in 2009 to the end of the 2014-2015 legal year. From this, we suggest that while a number of the Justices engaged in one or two broad forms of leadership – with Lady Hale in particular demonstrating a substantial degree of leadership across all three dimensions – at the other end of the spectrum, at least on the measures used in this paper, a significant minority did not. In the light of this, and the significant number of recent and forthcoming retirements from the Court, the paper concludes by considering the implications of our findings for the future of the Court. We argue that these retirements will result in gaps in both formal and informal judicial leadership, and it is vital that these gaps are filled by appointees who are capable of, and prepared to step up to, diverse and varied forms of judicial leadership.

Part II Investment Firms and Investment Services, 9 Agency and Principal Dealing under MiFID I and MiFID II

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Busch Danny
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
The Other ◽  
Uk Government ◽  
The One ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Investment Firm ◽  
Dutch Supreme ◽  
Investment Service

This chapter examines whether allowing the extent of the protection afforded to an investor under MiFID to be largely dependent on the distinction between dealing on own account on the one hand and trading on behalf of the client (and other forms of investment service) on the other is justified. The author submits that it is not. The distinction between dealing on own account and trading on behalf of the client is tenuous, arbitrary and easy to manipulate. According to the author, MiFID II provides no practicable criterion either, and resorts to the artifice of reclassifying certain types of dealing on own account as acting on behalf of the client. Finally, both the UK Government and the Dutch Supreme Court take the view that duties of care must also apply where an investment firm acts solely as an investor’s contractual counterparty.

No Certainty and No Justice: The Counterintuitive Effects of Enforcing “No Oral Modification Clauses”

Global Jurist ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua Tayar
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Contract Law ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Us States ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Legal Effect ◽  
Uniform Policy ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Abstract The legal effect of the “No Oral Modification clause” (“NOM clause”) has been described by the UK Supreme Court as a “truly fundamental issue in the law of contract”. Courts in Australia, common law Canada, and many US states had held that the NOM clause, which prescribes that an agreement may not be amended save in writing, is unenforceable. However, in a recent decision, the UK Supreme Court unanimously held that it is enforceable. This Essay seeks to demonstrate that a uniform policy of non-enforcement of the NOM clause is more consistent with the basic principles of contract law and will likely yield greater certainty and justice in the long run.

A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, Supreme Court

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Sex Offender ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Court Order ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in A v BBC (Scotland) [2014] UKSC 25, before the UK Supreme Court. This case concerned whether a court order granting anonymity to a convicted and deported foreign national sex offender could remain in place, notwithstanding objections from BBC (Scotland). In answering the question, the Court articulated what it referred to as the common law principle of open justice, which is the focus of this case note. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Some Question Marks of Private Law on the State-Owned Companies in Hungary

2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-217
Author(s):  
Tekla Papp
Keyword(s):  
Local Government ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Business Associations ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The One

Abstract The state can be an actor in Hungarian private law in several ways: on the one hand, by its organs (e.g. the Office of the National Assembly, ministries), on the other hand, by the organs of public law the state creates (e.g. budgetary organs), thirdly, through business associations operating with the participation of the state, fourthly, exceptionally, the state itself can also act as a subject of private law. In this study we call the attention to that the terminology used in case of business associations operating with state/local government participation is not sustainable and we focus on some issues where the private and public law discrepancy can be found in Hungary.

The Problem of the Non-justiciability of Religious Defamations

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 36-52
Author(s):  
Peter Smith
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Religious Doctrine ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Common ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

English courts have historically been wary of deciding cases that rest on contested findings of fact about the practices and doctrines of religions. This is particularly true in defamation cases. However, the recent case of Shergill and others v Khaira and others [2014] UKSC 33 in the UK Supreme Court has narrowed the principle of non-justiciability on the grounds of subject matter. Defamation cases such as Blake v Associated Newspapers Limited [2003] EWHC 1960 (QB) have treated religious doctrine and practice as matters not justiciable per se, even if a determination is essential for the exercise of private or public law rights and obligations. The Supreme Court indicated in Khaira that it may be appropriate for courts to treat such disputes as justiciable. The common law, domestic statute and the European Convention on Human Rights protect the right to reputation, and Khaira indicates that it is time that defamation claims resting on disputes about religious doctrine and practice were entertained by the courts to a much greater extent than recent cases have allowed. However, the judgment has left open the possibility of some religious disputes still being non-justiciable.

A Court of Specialists

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Hanretty
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tax Law ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
Political Differences ◽  
Uk Supreme Court ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Initial Selection ◽  
Selection Of

This book explains how judges on the UK Supreme Court behave. It looks at different stages in the court's decision-making process—from the initial selection of cases, to the choice of judges to sit on panels, to the final outcome. The main argument of the book is that judges' behavior is strongly affected by their specialism in different areas of law. Cases in tax law (or family law, or public law) are more likely to be heard by specialists in that area, and those specialists are more likely to write the court's decision—or disagree with the decision when there is dissent. Legal factors like specialization in areas of law explains more of the court's work than do political differences between judges.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document