British Islam and English Law

British Islam and English Law presents a novel argument about the nature and place of groups in society. The encounter with Islam has led English law to tread a line between two theoretical models, liberal individualism and multiculturalism, competing for dominance over the law of organised religion. This philosophical rivalry has generated a set of seemingly intractable conflicts between individual and community, religion and state, nation and culture. This book resurrects the long-buried theory of classical pluralism to address and resolve these tensions. Applying this to five understudied institutions that give structure and form to British Islam – banks, charities, schools, elections, clans – it outlines and justifies the reforms that would optimise the relationship between law and religion. Unflinching and unorthodox, this book places law and theory in context, employs innovative methods such as nudge theory and applied history, and provides detailed answers to hard questions about British Islam.

‘Obeisance to His Majesty, and Love to the Parliament’

This chapter assesses how Charles and parliament had always agreed that his eldest daughter Mary should not join her 'little Prince' in The Hague until she was twelve years old, the age at which she could legally consent to the marriage. Charles was perhaps not overtly concerned for his daughter's wellbeing, as in abiding by the English law he could keep his options open: he had not yet abandoned all hopes of securing a more financially advantageous match with Spain. When talks with the Spanish came to naught, the young princess provided Henrietta Maria with the perfect excuse to travel to the Dutch Republic. As the conflict between Charles and parliament became increasingly fractious, so the trickle of refugees fearing for their lives began to swell into a stream. Elizabeth Stuart had an important decision to make. It was not a question of supporting her brother or the institution that now controlled payment of her various allowances, but also that the Puritan faction in parliament were predisposed towards supporting her family's claim on the Palatinate on religious grounds. Fortunately for Elizabeth, the decision was taken out of her hands by Frederick Henry and the States of Holland.

Company Controller's Role as One Way to Rescue Companies under Jordanian's Insolvency Act 2018 "Comparative Study"

The main objective of this article is to shed light on the new emergence on the Jordanian insolvency Act no. 21 of 2018, after it became independent from the commercial law, specifically the role of the companies general controller through the application of the provisions of this law to rescue company as much as possible from stopping running its business activates and then its insolvency. In this article, the Jordanian law was compared with English law in order to compel Jordanian legislator to benefit from other legislation, given that the Jordanian law is still recent. This article dealt with the issue of corporate rescue and the role of the company controller in starting company insolvency procedures, in accordance with the provisions of the Jordanian Insolvency Act 2018; with refer to the provisions of the UNCITRAL Insolvency Legislative Guide 2004. This article concluded that Jordanian legislator must develop a rescue culture by putting in place protection for insolvent companies, such as a moratorium and expanding the means of rescue, rather than limiting the rescue culture to the reorganization plan that is adopted by the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide of Insolvency 2004. In addition, Jordanian legislators must make some legal amendments that are in line with recommendations made by legal authorities within the framework of the company controller role in the Jordanian Insolvency Act 2018.

Parliamentary Sovereignty before and beyond Brexit

This article assesses the use of parliamentary sovereignty against the background that UK parliament proclaimed it to be preserved under 2018 and 2020 withdrawal acts. The evidence is analysed to show whether that position works in English law.

Illuminated English Law Books

Illuminated books of the English legal tradition follow distinct iconographic patterns depending on the nature of the legal material included. The article explores correlations and dissonance between image and text as well as the symbolism associated with the imagery (in both initials and the margins) and its connection to political, legal and social discourses. It evaluates what the images reveal about key concepts of medieval law and justice, including kingship and good governance, the role of parliament and the church in endorsing these, as well as how these aspects might be undermined (or paradoxically confirmed) by medieval society’s penchant for role reversal, transgression and misrule.

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

Wagering and Gaming Contracts in New Zealand

<p>The law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand has a long and complex history which pre-dates the birth of this nation by almost two centuries. The Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) is a consolidating statute, but ss.69, 70 and 71, the enactments having specific application in this area, fall far short of providing a complete code of the law. English statutes enacted in the reigns of Charles II (1664), Anne (1710) and William IV (1835) have always been, and continue to be in force in this country, and indeed, their survival here has been more complete than in England where many of their provisions have been excised by the process of legislative repeal. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is very much a product of the English experience for the English enactments in force here are in turn supplemented by New Zealand provisions which have been largely copied from English Gaming Acts of 1845 and 1892. But the New Zealand Legislature has not been completely lacking in imagination. Section 71 of the Gaming Act 1908 (N.Z.) has no counterpart in the English statutes, and sections 69 and 70 of the New Zealand Act both contain subtle, but significant differences, to their English equivalents. However, although New Zealand law in this area is modelled on that of England, there the similarity ends. English law in existence and applicable to the circumstances of the Colony of New Zealand on the 14th of January 1840 was declared to be in force in New Zealand by the English Laws Act, 1858 (N.Z.). That Act did not, however, apply subsequent English enactments, and substantial reforms to the law of gaming and wagering contracts effected by the gaming Act, 1845 (U.K.) were not adopted in New Zealand until the colonial Gaming and Lotteries Act was enacted in 1881. The English Act of 1845 replaced the gaming contract provisions of the Act of Anne (1710) and repealed all but those securities provisions of that Act that had been modified by the Gaming Act, 1835 (U.K.) Thus, within a period of five years from the inception of the colony, New Zealand was applying English gaming laws that were more than two centuries old whilst the English Courts were faced with the prospect of construing a brand new Act. Thirty six years later the colonial legislature adopted verbatim the contract provisions in the Imperial Act of 1845. But by an apparent over-sight the colonial draftsman failed to effect the substantial repeals of the Acts of 1664 and 1710 the English Act had done. But that was only the first of the colonial errors. A further English Act in 1892 was copied and enacted by the colonial legislature in 1894 but with an appendage that demonstrated that the New Zealand legislature had not fully understood the full import of the English measure. This created difficulties of interpretation which were only compounded by a further error of the draftsman of the 1881 Act when he mistakenly copied s.6 of the Betting Houses Act 1853 (U.K.) into s.34 of the former Act without realising the significance of doing so. The 1894 Act also introduced what is now s.71 of the 1908 Act, a provision the reason for the enactment of which has remained unexplained to the present day. When a consolidation of the Colonial Acts was effected by the Gaming Act 1908 the law of gaming and wagering contracts was already in a state of considerable confusion. That confusion was, of course, carried into that Act, but it did not end there and indeed can be said to have gained a new dimension when, as recently as 1970, the New Zealand legislature enacted the Illegal Contracts Act. The New Zealand law of gaming and wagering contracts is largely a product of misunderstandings and errors that occurred when legislative attempts were made to re-enact and effect modifications of the English statutes in this country. In this work the writer seeks to identify the points of departure and to find a rational basis for the law of gaming and wagering contracts and this investigation proceeds in the context of a recognised need for proposals for reform. To this end, in chapters 1 and 2 the social climate in which the Acts of 1664, 1710, 1835 and 1845 are enacted, and their purpose and scope, is identified. In chapter 3 the case for the proposition that the Acts of 1664, 1710 and 1835 are in force in New Zealand is made out and this is followed in chapter 4 by an attempt to explain the motivation behind the enactment of the colonial Acts of 1881 and 1894. Included in this chapter is an outline of the difficulties inherent in both the language of these Acts, and the construction applied to them by the Courts, Chapter 5 is devoted to ascertaining the actual scope of the law of gaming and wagering contracts in New Zealand today and in the penultimate chapter the Impact upon, and the implications for that law, of the Illegal Contracts Act 1970 is discussed. Each section is, where appropriate, accompanied by specific proposals for reform, and those proposals are brought together in summary form in chapter 7.</p>

John Philpot – Archdeacon of Winchester and Martyr (1515–1555)

This is the most comprehensive account yet of the life of John Philpot, archdeacon of Winchester cathedral and martyr, burned at the stake in 1555. Included is an outline of his trial from which it is shown that he was promised the position of archdeacon by the ultra conservative bishop of Winchester, Stephen Gardiner. Evidence is also provided from the trial and from his family, contrary to the opinion of Muriel St. Clare Byrne, that he was not related to Clement Philpot who was executed in 1540. A transcript translation of his father's will is provided giving a good indication of his family circumstances. This will was drawn up in 1540 at a pivotal point in English law when, in order to overcome the default position of inheritance through primogeniture, the rules of will writing were altered. This will was written to abide by the rules that existed before the new Statute of Wills was passed by Parliament, and, also, to abide by the new rules set out in the Statute. From this will and other evidence a new genealogy of the Philpot family down to the 1650s is provided. The authenticity of the so-called portrait of John Philpot held at Winchester cathedral is also discussed.