Rectification of the Register – Prospective or Retrospective?

In Gold Harp v MacLeod the Court of Appeal considered paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the Land Registration Act 2002 and interpreted this provision to mean that the priority between mistakenly de‐registered interests and registered interests can be altered following rectification. The court can give the de‐registered interest the priority which it ‘would have had’ but for the mistake. In other words, it allows for retrospective rectification. This case note concludes that this is the correct interpretation of paragraph 8 and of the words ‘for the future’. However, it argues that the current range of options available to the court in terms of rectification are producing uncertainty, and that a better approach may be to rely on the priority provisions in sections 28 and 29.     

The prosecutor and human rights – from the general to the particular

It is not unusual that one or all parties commit a genuine mistake when making contracts. While there is the strict general duty under the law to respect agreements, there equally exists the duty for courts and tribunals to be fair and to render commercial justice in the factual matrix of cases before them. In national legal systems and transnational law regimes, rescission for mistake on economically efficient and just terms is embedded in contractual obligations. The Solle v Butcher (1950) doctrine, which represented the English law approach, was rejected in The Great Peace (2002). Potential conflicts and crises now exist in commercial relations and international dispute resolution when ‘English law’ is the applicable law. This extends to jurisdictions where English decisions are highly persuasive. This article examines the correctness and effect of The Great Peace decision on the doctrine of equitable rescission for genuine mistake as propounded in Solle v Butcher, and possible clarifications needed after the complications brought by The Great Peace. It analyses the conceptual importance of the remedy of equitable rescission for mistake in commercial transactions, and identifies serious substantive errors of law by The Great Peace court. Finally, it provides other effective, fair and efficient legal methods that remain available to avoid the weaknesses of the decisions.     

Title by Registration: Rectification,Indemnity and Mistake and the Land Registration Act 2002

Our understanding of the system of registered title is crucial to our understanding of real property in general but there is no consensus as to the best way to interpret ‘correcting a mistake’ in Schedule 4 LRA 2002. This provision should be interpreted to mean that subsequent registrations following a ‘mistaken’ registration are not in themselves a mistake. Section 58 means that the subsequent transferee is relying on good title and a valid transfer and this ought to protect them from rectification. Where an original registered proprietor loses out as a result of this interpretation, they should be entitled to an indemnity however and this requires a change of approach to the interpretation of Schedule 8 LRA 2002. This approach best accords with the logic of the principle of title by registration whilst also avoiding a clash with Article 1, Protocol 1 ECHR.     

Licensing lifesavers: possible routes to overcome errors and omissions in licence agreements

Legal context. This article is about the possible ways the correctionof errors in a written agreement can be achieved. These errorsmight be in the way that the agreement has been written or thatthe parties misunderstood the agreement each thought they weremaking. Key points. English law provides a number of ways in which suchmistakes or misunderstandings might be resolved, ultimatelyby a court if further agreement cannot be reached. First, thewritten agreement might simply be unenforceable. If not, thena court might construe the wording in the agreement in a waythat reflects the intention of the parties, implying terms intothat contract, or rectify the words used in the agreement. Practical significance. The intention of the article is to makepractitioners aware of these various routes to remedy mistakeswhich have been made in connection with written agreements.This knowledge will enable an informed approach to be takento resolving the dispute of which the mistake or alleged mistakeis the cause. Negotiations can take place around the possibleeffect of the mistake and the available remedies. This knowledgecan be used to resolve disputes arising out of such errors eitherby negotiation, possibly through mediation, and ultimately byappropriate action in the courts.     

Fictions of Restorative Justice,Vincent Geeraets

In this paper, I argue that scholars such as John Braithwaite and Lode Walgrave rely on fictions when presenting their utopian vision of restorative justice. Three claims in particular are shown to be fictitious. Proponents of restorative justice maintain, first, that the offender and the victim voluntarily attend the restorative conference. Second, that the restorative conference enables the offender and the victim to take on active responsibility. Third, that the reparatory tasks on which the parties agree should not be understood in terms of the intentional infliction of harm. These fictions, so I argue, are not merely a mistake, but instead serve an important function: the various parties need to believe that they adequately capture the reality of the restorative conference as they are more likely to acquiesce if they believe the fictions to be true. I conclude that the fictions are the driving force within the restorative endeavour.     

New Battles and Battlegrounds for Mandatory Arbitration After Epic Systems,New Prime,and Lamps Plus

The Supreme Court's recent decisions interpreting the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) in the employment context generally prioritize arbitration over workers’ labor law rights. The majority in Epic Systems Corporation v. Lewis upheld mandatory individual employment arbitration agreements despite their conflict with the labor law right to act in concert. The same majority in Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela rejected a state law interpretation of a contract provision to find that parties to an employment contract intend individual arbitration absent reference to group arbitration. A unanimous Court in New Prime v. Oliveira interpreted the FAA to include independent contractors under the transportation worker exemption, reinvigorating the battle over what it means to be engaged in interstate commerce to qualify for the exemption. These decisions resolved some disputes about the breadth of the FAA, but other questions remain. In the wake of Epic Systems and Lamps Plus, state courts and legislatures are testing the boundaries of the FAA's saving clause, with limited success. Confidentiality provisions, frequently associated with arbitration agreements, may unlawfully interfere with employees’ federal labor law rights. This article recommends that Congress amend the FAA to address these issues by excluding all workers engaged in interstate commerce, not just transportation workers, because the Court has strayed far from the original intent of the Act—to enforce commercial agreements in which the parties had equal bargaining power. State legislation also should provide guidance on what makes arbitration voluntary and fair, and provide a choice to employees on collective action, forum, and confidentiality.     

Good Faith and the Ubiquity of the ‘Relational’ Contract

The judgment of Leggatt J in Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd shows the common belief that the English law of contract does not have a doctrine of good faith to be mistaken. That law does not have a general principle of good faith, but its doctrine of good faith, articulated through numerous specific duties, is more suitable for the interpretation of contracts according to the intentions of the parties than a general principle which invites the imposition of exogenous standards. That Yam Seng involved a relational contract does not mean that paternalistic exogenous standards should be imposed. It means that the good faith obligations essential even to a commercial contract of this sort must be implied in order to give efficacy to the fundamentally co‐operative contractual relationship.     

Mistakes in Algorithmic Trading of Cryptocurrencies

How should the doctrine of unilateral mistake apply when a programming error results in a buyer's algorithmic trading programme accepting an offer generated by the seller's trading programme to exchange cryptocurrencies at 250 times the current market rate? How should the knowledge element be adapted given that algorithmic trading necessarily means that the traders’ minds were not engaged at the moment the contract was formed? These novel issues came before the Singapore Court of Appeal in Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd. The decision further cautions customers of cryptocurrency exchanges not to assume that they have property rights in the cryptocurrencies held by the exchange and to examine carefully the nature of asset holding arrangement found in the documentation.     

The Common Law Constitution at Work: R (on the application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor

This note considers the radical significance of Supreme Court's judgment in R (on the Application of UNISON) v Lord Chancellor (UNISON) on the unlawfulness of tribunal fees. It argues that the decision marks the coming of age of the ‘common law constitution at work’. The radical potential of UNISON lies in its generation of horizontal legal effects in disputes between private parties. Recent litigation on employment status in the ‘gig economy’ is analysed through the lens of UNISON and common law fundamental rights. The note identifies the various ways in which the common law tests of employment status might be ‘constitutionalised’ in the light of UNISON.     

WAIVER HEARING A FRUSTRATING TASK

In the September decision in Haziel v. United States, Chief Judge Bazelon, speaking for the majority of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, said:     

Polarization and Policy: The Politics of Public‐Sector Pensions

For decades, America's state and local governments have promised their workers increasingly generous pensions but failed to fully fund them, producing a fiscal problem of staggering proportions. In this article, we examine the politics of public pensions. While mainstream theoretical ideas in the American politics literature would suggest the pension issue should be polarized, with Democrats pushing for generous pensions over Republican resistance, we develop an argument—rooted in more traditional theoretical work by Schattschneider, Lowi, Wilson, and others—implying that both parties should be expected to support generous pensions during normal times and that only after the onset of the Great Recession, which expanded the scope of conflict, should the parties begin to diverge. Using a new data set of state legislators' votes on hundreds of pension bills passed between 1999 and 2011, we carry out an empirical analysis that supports these expectations.     

Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd: Reflective Loss and the Autonomy of Company Law

In Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd the Supreme Court considered the ambit of the prohibition on a shareholder recovering losses from third parties for the reduction in the value of their shares or loss of dividend income arising from a wrong suffered by the company. This prohibition on ‘reflective loss’ had been growing in scope in recent years, leading to a lack of clarity as to whether it is taxonomically situated in company law or in private law. The majority in this case situated the prohibition firmly within company law. This note argues that the majority judgment did not go far enough and explores the impact of this case on company law more broadly.     

In Defense of Asbestos Tort Litigation: Rethinking Legal Process Analysis in a World of Uncertainty, Second Bests, and Shared Policy-Making Responsibility

A central question in American policy making is when should courts address complex policy issues, as opposed to defer to other forums? Legal process analysis offers a standard answer. It holds that judges should act when adjudication offers advantages over other modes of social ordering such as contracts, legislation, or agency rule making. From this vantage, the decision to use common law adjudication to address a sprawling public health crisis was a terrible mistake, as asbestos litigation has come to represent the very worst of mass tort litigation. This article questions this view, arguing that legal process analysis distorts the institutional choices underlying the American policy‐making process. Indeed, once one considers informational and political constraints, as well as how the branches of government can fruitfully share policy‐making functions, the asbestos litigation seems a reasonable and, in some ways, exemplary, use of judicial power.     

The market of human experimentation

How should experiments on humans be regulated and controlled? Is it possible to create an equilibrium between the optimal protection of patients’ rights and all the other interests involved? This paper analyzes the problem from a Law and Economics point of view and tries to develop a theoretical model that would provide a way to achieve that equilibrium, both in terms of effectiveness and efficiency, a model in which the interaction between different parties can lead to a market where information is exchanged for innovation. This paper is based on work that has been done up to now by other sciences, like medicine and bioethics, treating the issue with an alternative approach in order to propose an oversight system able to give an answer to this unsolved problem. This work is mainly aimed at defining the rules of the market in Europe, including its actors and their interactions using both a normative and a positive approach. Both the behavior of rational people and that of bounded ones are analyzed, as well as the strategies that can be applied against the latter by stronger parties. Finally, the public stakeholder’s role in preventing this from happening is analyzed.     

Trust Parties’ Uniquely Easy Access to Rescission: Analysis,Critique and Reform

Parties to trusts currently enjoy easier access to judicial avoidance of voluntary dispositions resulting from mistakes and inadequate decision‐making than other persons. The principal doctrinal basis for this advantage has shifted from the rule in Re Hastings‐Bass to rescission in equity. The article argues that this advantage is normatively unjustified, and recommends a uniform legal framework to govern the avoidance of voluntary dispositions resulting from mistakes or inadequate decision‐making, whether or not a trust was involved. Under this framework, dispositions resulting from laypersons’ mistakes and inadequate decision‐making should be avoided, subject to appropriate defences, whenever that causative nexus is present, while dispositions resulting from professionals’ mistakes and inadequate decision‐making should only be avoided where the mistake or deliberative flaw was so serious as to render the transferee's retention of property transferred unjust.     

Contractual Interpretation,Registered Documents and Third Party Effects

This article considers whether extrinsic material should be available in interpreting registered documents when these may be contractual in nature or relate to contractual agreements. Many registers, for example the current scheme for recording land title, are intended to facilitate the reliance of third parties on their content, an objective that suggests that extrinsic material should be excluded. Such an approach, however, could itself cause unfairness and conflicts with the way that contractual documents are normally interpreted. Exploring this question leads us to consider the contextual approach to contractual interpretation generally and whether it should take account of the contemplated effects of contractual language on third parties. After concluding in the affirmative, we then ask whether this is sufficient as an approach to interpreting contractual documents entered into a register.     

The Impact of Assembly Size on Representativeness

Choosing the number of seats in a legislature is a balancing act between efficiency and representativeness. This article focuses on representativeness and hypothesises that the larger the assembly, the higher the vote–seat proportionality, the higher the number of parties represented, and the higher the representation of otherwise under-represented groups. An approach using simulations of elections is introduced and applied in testing the hypotheses in the case of Danish local elections. Two thousand six hundred and forty-six elections are simulated, and a positive, but non-linear, relationship is demonstrated between number of seats and proportionality, number of parties, and percentage of women councillors.     

The Common Core between Human Rights Law and International Criminal Law: A Structural Account

Legal scholars and theorists have recently drawn a more sustained attention to the link between international human rights law (hereafter IHRL) and international criminal law (hereafter ICL). This concerns both positive and more normative accounts of the link. Whether positive or normative, the predominant approach to constructing the link is substantive. This overlap is normatively justified in similar terms by reference to a subset of moral human rights. In this paper, I offer an alternative to the substantive approach. After identifying two flaws in the substantive approach (the problem of threshold and the problem of ethical neutrality), I defend what I call a structural account by focusing on duty‐holders. I start by reconstructing two structural characteristics common to IHRL and ICL qua international legal regimes: who has the authority to address violations of IHRL and ICL, and who can be liable for those violations. I then infer that public authority (functionally construed) constitutes the common structural core of IHRL and ICL. I rely on the extraterritorial application of IHRL and on the collective dimension of ICL violations to further support the argument. I finally offer an argument explaining the normative point of those structural features. I hold that IHRL and ICL (their adjudicative and liability regimes) are both necessary (but clearly not sufficient) to render this exercise of public authority legitimate to its subjects.     

Skype Technologies SA v Joltid Limited and others [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch). Anti-suit injunction: Clarification of effect of English exclusive jurisdiction clause in worldwide technology licensing contract

The Court's discretion in granting an anti-suit injunction has been clarified further by the recent decision of Mr Justice Lewison in Skype Technologies SA v Joltid Limited and Others [2009] EWHC 2783 (Ch). Ruling on the Court's willingness to grant an anti-suit injunction where an exclusive jurisdiction clause had been breached, Mr Justice Lewison held that “standard considerations that arise in arguments about forum non conveniens should be given little weight in the face of an exclusive jurisdiction clause where the parties have chosen the courts of a neutral territory in the context of an agreement with world-wide application. Otherwise the exclusive jurisdiction clause would be deprived of its intended effect”. It follows that contracting parties who deliberately select the English courts as a neutral forum in an exclusive jurisdiction clause will not be allowed to “wriggle out” of their agreement, unless the party seeking to commence proceedings in an alternative forum can establish exceptional reasons, outside of ordinary forum non conveniens arguments, to justify why the exclusive jurisdiction clause should be displaced.