Australian tort law reform: statutory principles of causation and the common law

By mid-2004, Parliaments in each Australian jurisdiction will either complete or will be in the process of partial codification of the law of torts. The reforms, including those to the law of negligence, are extensive. This article focuses on codification of the law of causation as an element of the cause of action in negligence. It examines the background to "tort reform", as the process has been labelled, and discusses the common law paradigm of negligence and various approaches to causation. It then analyses and compares the causation provisions in each jurisdiction.     

Automatism: comparison of common law and civil law approaches--a search for the optimal

This article reviews common and civil law approaches to automatism with discussion of legal definitions and the conditions in which automatism occurs. The common law approach to sane (exogenous) and insane (endogenous) automatism is examined. Despite a change in the law, which obviates mandatory incarceration for all persons found not guilty on the basis of insane automatism, the stigma of insanity remains. A number of Continental jurisdictions, though, have adopted an approach divorced from judgmental labels, whereby acts, which result from automatism, are classified under the rubric of unconsciousness. The article draws upon this approach, analyses alternatives to insane automatism and proposes instead an analysis by reference to "cognitive dysfunction", thereby removing all reference to the concept of insanity.     

English common law against bail bonding

Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology -     

The English common law criminal defence and excuse of necessity: a critical comparison of the customary law and commonplace

A defendant turned off an oil pipeline argued and used the common law defence of necessity. The Court permitted the accused to argue that this action was necessary to decelerate calamitous climate change. The objective is to compare critically the development and use of the defence and excuse of necessity. The question is whether Lord Coleridge had a prejudging objective, in R v. Dudley and Stephens, and if so, what was it likely to have been. Necessity, as an excuse, is a categorical imperative because it is of the same structure as violating a law to save the state.     

On the formal rationality of commercial law in common law system

Common law traditionally contains the formal rationality of commercial law. According to common law tradition, there is no possibility of preventing commercial law from being formalized. Formalization of commercial law in common law system is an institutional demand of market economy and is jointly promoted by the legal tradition of common law countries. The commercial law in the two legal systems indicates that the commercial law is made depending on the market economy and the form of commercial law is restricted by legal tradition. The formalization and assimilation of commercial law are an internal need as well as an inevitable trend in the course of economic development.     

A secret paradox of the common law

This essay recounts a fascinating if complicated piece of Anglo-American debate. My aim is to reach a conclusion about the importance of the notion of changing one's normative position as part of the act of “giving sufficient consideration” for a legal contract. In several journals and textbooks between 1894 and 1918 the major contract scholars of the time, e.g., Langdell, Anson, Pollock, Williston, Ames, and Corbin, discussed a special example which was thought to reveal a paradox in the common law of consideration. The problem had shown itself in the textbooks of Pollock in England and Langdell in the United States. The example is of two contracts made by three persons in which one contract with the third party repeats the content of an existing contract with the second party. It would appear that the party at the pivot experiences no new detriment in merely performing, or promising to perform, his pre-existing duty. If so, such oblique contracts with third parties must fail for want of consideration extended from the first party. About this difficulty the experts were anything but agreed. The cases were not consistent. At the root of this uncertainty is an ambivalence about the concept of consideration itself. Should it be conceived in terms of normative relations and changes of moral position or should it be conceived in valuative terms, as harms and benefits? The differences of opinion about the legal validity of oblique contracts is explained by this ambiguity, one which the common lawyer has not yet resolved.     

陪审制度比较研究

现代陪审制度是国家司法机关吸收普通公民参加审判活动的重要制度,是现代司法民主和公民权利的保障制度.这个制度古老的雏形最初是发源于古希腊和古罗马,经过2000年的生长,在不同的时期和不同的法律传统、文化影响下,发生很大变化.……     

Developing a common law of animal welfare: offences against animals and offences against persons compared

Most animal welfare/suffering cases heard by the courts focus only on the facts: did the defendant, as a matter of fact, do those things with which they are charged? Analysis of the 2010 Amersham horse cruelty case reveals that there is significant room for ambiguity and subjective interpretation within the statutes that underpin animal welfare law. To provide certainty and to allow the law to develop it is essential that cases such as Amersham are not only subject to a review of the facts, but also a full analysis of the legal principles contained within the relevant statutes.     

A need for greater understanding of civil law entities by common law jurisdictions

In the course of the last six months, the ratification by theSwiss parliament of The Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on theLaw Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition has generatedmuch attention. There has also