Consent to Treatment for Transgender Youth: The Next Chapter – Bell & Anor v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust & Ors

In September 2021, the Court of Appeal reversed the controversial decision of Quincy Bell v Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust in a victory for transgender rights. At first instance, the Divisional Court had set a high legal threshold for transgender children to attain Gillick competence to consent to treatment with puberty blockers – effectively restricting access to treatment for many. On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that children are capable in law of giving valid consent to treatment for gender dysphoria, and court authorisation would not be routinely required before children could access such treatment. This note considers the implications of the Court of Appeal decision for the law on minors and consent to medical treatment in the transgender health context.     

Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital – Parliamentary Intention and Damages Caused by Maladministration of a Contractual Dismissal Procedure

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2011] UKSC 58 [2012] 2 W.L.R. 55 the Supreme Court addressed the following question: is an employee, who can establish that (a) if a contractual disciplinary process had been correctly administered he would have been exonerated, and (b) thereafter employed until retirement, able to sue for loss of the earnings that he would have acquired until retirement? Three members of the Supreme Court held that such a remedy was not reconcilable with the enactment, originally in the Industrial Relations Act 1971, of a statutory unfair dismissals protection regime. It was Parliament's intention that an employee should not be able to outmanoeuvre the statute's compensation limitation rules by deploying a superior common law remedy. This note considers that reading of Parliament's intention.     

The Genesis of the Austrian Model of Constitutional Review of Legislation

Abstract The European model of the constitutional review of legislation, characterized by the concentration of the constitutional review power in a single constitutional court, had its origin in the Austrian Federal Constitution of 1920. This is all the more remarkable when one considers that this Constitution established at the same time a parliamentary system of government in a fairly radical form. As the author explains, this “invention” of a constitutional court is attributable to two factors. One factor is the federal aspect. The Court was conceived by the framers of the Austrian Federal Constitution of 1920 as an umpire between federal legislation and the legislation of the states or Länder. In this respect it was meant as a substitute for the principle of the priority of federal law over state or Land law. This is manifest in the initial draft of the Constitution, where actions on questions of the constitutionality of legislation could only be brought by the Federal government (against the legislation of one or another of the states or Länder) and by the State or Land governments (against federal legislation). Right from the beginning, however, the Court could examine a parliamentary act ex officio when it had to apply such an act in another proceeding. It was this power of the Court that triggered the development of constitutional review. Its exercise gradually transformed the Court into a guardian of the Constitution as a whole, in particular, the fundamental rights of citizens. The author traces this development in the context of the concept of state and law that prevailed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. This concept included specific restrictions on constitutional review. On the basis of a different understanding of the functions of a constitution, the Court gave up these restrictions and followed the examples of the European Court of Human Rights, the German Constitutional Court and—indirectly—the American Supreme Court.     

最高人民法院裁判、司法解释的法律地位

The decisions and the legislative interpretations of judicial interpretations of the Supreme Court of China can be considered as a part of Mainland China’s customary law, and carried by decisions and judicial interpretations. Customary law is the very source of its normal force and they are supposed to be an informal source of the law for they have the required characteristics for substantiating customary law. Accordingly, the legislative judicial interpretations and decisions of the Supreme Court that are qualified to be promulgated in the Gazette of the Supreme Court should be standardized by the requisites of customary law and have the quality supposed to be universally fair. Cao Shibing is a senior judge of the Supreme Court of China majoring in civil law, and he was awarded the doctorate of law by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Till now, he has published an amount of academic works, for instance, On Anti-monopoly Law (1996), Resolve of the Problems in the Suretyship Law of China and its Prospect (2001), On Insolvency Law of China (2003), and his translated book in Chinese (1998) —The Death of Contract (originally written by Grant Gilmore in 1995).     

The decision of the Italian Constitutional Court on numerus clausus: A matter for Community law

This article discusses the recent decision of the Italian Constitutional Court on the numerus clausus issue, containing the first relevant pronouncement by the highest jurisdiction on the constitutional legality of the measures adopted so far by the Ministry. The Constitutional Court considers these measures in conformity with the Constitution to the extent that they implement Community law, and especially certain directives on the recognition of qualifications. Thus, Community law is deemed to provide the proper legal framework to adopt certain regulations, amongst which restrictions to access. This article argues that, in the context of litigation on access to university, Community law has been used improperly and that, in any event, a convenient solution to the issue could have been found in national law. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

The Law and the Desert: Alternative Methods of Delivering Justice

This article considers the way in which the Federal Court of Australia has adapted to the native title jurisdiction. Here we see how common law approaches to law and procedure challenge, and are challenged by, the culture of indigenous peoples and customary law. It conveys the risk of cultural violence in a balancing of legal and cultural norms and shows how access to justice debates reach beyond debates about funding and advice into more fundamental issues about legal process and the nature of substantive law. The Court's approach to facilitating access to justice goes deeper than essential procedural changes. Its approach suggests a cultural change within the Court.     

The Limitations of a Multilingual Legal System

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the way in which it works can be seen as a microcosm of how a multilingual, multicultural supranationalisation process and legal order can be constructed—the Court is a microcosm of the EU as a whole and in particular of EU law. The multilingual jurisprudence produced by the CJEU is necessarily shaped by the dynamics within that institution and by the ‘cultural compromises’ at play in the production process. The resultant texts, which make up that jurisprudence, are hybrid in nature and inherently approximate. On the one hand, that approximation can lead to discrepancies between language versions of the Court’s case law and thus jeopardise the uniform application of EU law. On the other hand, that approximation and hybridity define EU law as a distinct, supranational legal order. This paper analyses the operation of the CJEU and considers whether a linguistic cultural compromise exists within that institution which exercises a formative influence on the character of its ‘output’—i.e. its jurisprudence—and what that may mean for our understanding of the development of EU law.     

Sickness Absence and the Court of Justice: Examining the Role of Fundamental Rights in EU Employment Law

Being absent from work due to sickness is a critical issue for individuals and their employers, but it has traditionally fallen outside the scope of EU employment legislation. This article argues that this is changing; it examines case‐law under the Working Time and Employment Equality Directives. The article considers the justifications that the Court of Justice has advanced to explain this expansion in EU employment law. It finds that the Court has, at times, invoked fundamental social rights as a basis for interpreting employment legislation in a manner favourable to workers. Yet the way in which the Court deploys rights‐based reasoning can be difficult to anticipate, not least the countervailing weight attached to the interests of employers. The case studies indicate that fundamental rights discourse offers a possible foundation for more extensive readings of employment legislation, but it is not a simple ‘trump card’ for advocates of stronger worker protection.     

Investors’ Rights in (Crypto) Custodial Holdings: Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation)

Ruscoe v Cryptopia Ltd (in Liquidation) is a landmark decision of the New Zealand High Court that considers for the first time in a comprehensive way whether cryptocurrencies are property at common law and to what extent account holders’ (interests in) cryptocurrencies are protected from the claims of the insolvent crypto‐exchange's creditors. The ruling relies on a body of case law from various common law jurisdictions and, to a significant extent, on the findings of the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce Legal Statement on Cryptoassets and Smart Contracts. In tackling complex areas of legal uncertainty, it provides an authoritative conceptual benchmark for future court decisions and normative initiatives.     

最高法院对外国法适用的上诉审查

最高法院位于一国司法体系的顶端,同时负有上诉终审裁判功能和发展法律的功能.最高法院是否应对外国法的错误适用进行上诉审查,各国实践和理论分歧甚大,从中可以概括出三种基本模式:拒绝审查模式、有限审查模式和全面审查模式.从最高法院的上诉裁判功能出发,为落实当事人的上诉救济权利,尤其是在我国二审终审和法官对外国法的查明和确定拥有主导权的语境下,最高法院应对外国法的错误适用进行上诉审查.外国法的适用与本国法律体系的发展并不割裂,相反两者具有实质关联,最高法院从其发展法律的功能出发,也应主动审查下级法院对外国法的错误适用.最高法院解释和适用外国法,有助于增进本国法律体系的包容和开放的精神.     

Two Concepts of the Margin of Appreciation

The doctrine of the margin of appreciation that the EuropeanCourt of Human Rights has developed in its case law has givenrise to considerable criticism. In this article I draw a distinctionbetween two different ways in which the Court has used the doctrine.The first one is in cases where the Court has to decide whethera particular interference with a Convention freedom is justified.In answering that question, the Court often uses the label ‘marginof appreciation’ without drawing on a substantive theoryof rights that can justify the conclusion reached. The seconduse appears in cases where the Court refrains explicitly fromemploying a substantive test of human rights review on the basisthat there is no consensus among Contracting States on the legalissue before it. My aim is to highlight the principles thatcan be used to justify each use of the doctrine, by locatinghuman rights within broader issues in moral and political philosophy.Particular emphasis is placed on the distinction between reason-blockingand interest-based theories of rights as well as on the natureof the duties of the European Court, as a matter of internationalhuman rights law.     

The Development of EU Case‐Law on Age Discrimination in Employment: ‘Will You Still Need Me? Will You Still Feed Me? When I'm Sixty‐Four’

This article addresses the development of age discrimination law in the Court of Justice and concludes that there is a marked difference in the level of discretion given to Member States in cases relating to mandatory retirement policies. The article will critique the approach of the Court of Justice to the legitimate objective test and the proportionality test in retirement cases. It will also argue that the decisions of the Court of Justice to date have all involved cases with very similar factual scenarios, and the article hypothesises how a different conclusion might be reached in cases with different factors. It also considers the impact of the Charter of Fundamental Rights on such cases. The article concludes by arguing that mandatory retirement policies may no longer be compatible with EU law and that there is a need to move towards more flexible retirement policies.     

Immediate Effect of Community Law in the New Member States: Is there a Place for a Consistent Doctrine?

Abstract: Extension of the acquis to the new Member States raises a number of questions relating to the temporal reach of Community rules. This paper examines a general doctrine underlying the solutions. It presents a classic intertemporal doctrine, which has influenced early jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. Then, it comments upon the cases brought before the Court in the context of the 1995 enlargement, the entry into force of the EEA Agreement and also the Europe Agreements. These cases evidence substantial differences in the attitudes taken by the national courts, the Advocates General and the Court. One reason for divergence is that the line of reasoning adopted by the Court carries several interpretative difficulties characteristic of the classic doctrine. Secondly, controversies arise in the instances where the Court takes a proactive attitude, which is difficult to reconcile with the traditional scheme. It is argued that greater attention to the structure underlying the reasoning would help to strengthen justification of the Court's solutions and enhance their predictability. This is the more important, as the forthcoming accessions are likely to bring new disputes relating to the effects of Community law in time.     

Is tobacco a drug? Administrative agencies as common law courts

Professor Cass Sunstein argues that the FDA has the authority to regulate tobacco products. He considers the text of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which supports the FDA assertion, and the context of its enactment, which argues against the FDA. He resolves the tension between text and context in favor of FDA jurisdiction by turning to the emerging role of administrative agencies. In modern government, he contends, administrative agencies have become America's common law courts, with the power to adapt statutory regimes to new facts and new values when the underlying statute is ambiguous. Professor Sunstein's Article, like the other pieces in this volume, was written after the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina decided Coyne Beahm v. FDA, but before a three judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision in Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FDA. In Coyne Beahm, the District Court held that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act authorized the FDA to regulate tobacco products, but not tobacco advertising. The Fourth Circuit rejected the District Court's jurisdictional ruling and invalidated the FDA's regulations in their entirety. The Clinton Administration has since requested an en banc rehearing before the Fourth Circuit.     

The legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment: part 2 (Queensland)

This is the second article in a series of three that examines the legal role of medical professionals in decisions to withhold or withdraw life-sustaining treatment from adults who lack capacity. This article considers the position in Queensland, including the parens patriae jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. A review of the law in this State reveals that medical professionals play significant legal roles in these decisions. However, the law is problematic in a number of respects and this is likely to impede medical professionals' legal knowledge in this area. The article examines the level of training medical professionals receive on issues such as advance health directives and substitute decision-making, and the available empirical evidence as to the state of medical professionals' knowledge of the law at the end of life. It concludes that there are gaps in legal knowledge and that law reform is needed in Queensland.     

An Incomplete Victory: The Implications of QT v Director of Immigration for the Protection of Gay Rights in Hong Kong

QT v Director of Immigration is the most important decision on gay rights in Hong Kong since the unequal ages of consent between heterosexuals and homosexuals were held to be unconstitutional 10 years ago. The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong affirmed the right of same‐sex couples married or in a civil partnership overseas to be treated on an equal basis with married heterosexual couples. This note considers the strengths and shortcomings of the Court of Appeal's reasoning, in terms of its potential significance both to the rights of sexual minorities and to the wider protection of human rights by means of the common law.     

Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The Multilingual Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

The case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) is shaped by the language in which it is drafted—i.e. French. However, because French is rarely the mother tongue of those drafting that case law, the texts produced are often stilted and awkward. In addition, those drafting such case law are constrained in their use of language and style of writing (owing to pressures of technology and in order to reinforce the rule of law). These factors have led to the development of a ‘Court French’ which necessarily shapes the case law produced and has implications for its development, particularly insofar as it inevitably leads to a type of precedent in that case law. That case law also undergoes many permutations of translation into and out of up to 23 different languages. The resultant texts that make up the case law are hybrid in nature—consisting of a blend of cultural and linguistic patterns, constrained by a rigid formulistic drafting style and put through many permutations of translation. The present paper investigates the production of the Court’s multilingual case law and considers whether the hybrid nature of that case law can actually aid the presentation (and thus the development) of a ‘uniform’ EU case law.     

The Assumption of Jurisdiction: Parliament,the King's Council and the College of Justice in Sixteenth-Century Scotland

This article considers how the Scottish Court of Session developed out of the restricted jurisdiction of the medieval King's Council, and achieved recognition as a supreme civil court during the sixteenth century, thereby assimilating the main judicial role of the medieval Scottish Parliament. It argues that the change resulted not from any particular legislative or judicial decision but from a gradual assumption of jurisdiction concealed within an expansion of the scope of traditional remedies. It is argued that the most decisive step occurred when the pleading of actions on heritable title to land began to be seen as within the ambit of those remedies. It is argued that this assumption of jurisdiction had occurred by the time of the foundation of the College of Justice in 1532, precluding any development along English lines of equitable remedies outside the procedures of the common law in Scotland.     

Reductio Ad Absurdum: The Kapo Trial Judgements’ Contribution To International Criminal Law Jurisprudence And Customary International Law

Several Jewish persons designated as concentration camp guards (Kapos) during the Holocaust were subsequently tried in Israel in the 1950s and 1960s for allegedly committing grave crimes. This article examines these trial judgements and considers their significance to international criminal law jurisprudence and customary international law. First, this article will delineate the trial judgements’ purpose, relevance and previous contribution to customary international law. Secondly, a comparative narrative of the judgements with recent case law from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Court will illuminate their potential contribution, specifically to the principles of modes of liability, criminal intent, and the defence of duress. The Kapo trial judgements may therefore continue to offer an extreme case example and a worthy source of common law for international criminal law jurisprudence and customary international law.     

The Place of Wishes and Feelings in Best Interests Decisions: Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B

In Wye Valley NHS Trust v Mr B the Court of Protection decided that it was not in the best interests of Mr B to receive amputation surgery against his will, notwithstanding that he would die without the treatment. The judge met with Mr B in person and his best interests decision placed significant weight on Mr B's wishes and feelings. This case note considers this influential case in the context of ongoing debate about the place of wishes and feelings in best interests decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It considers the history of the best interests principle, its interpretation by the Supreme Court in Aintree University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v James, ongoing debates about its compatibility with Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and recent proposals by the Law Commission for statutory amendments to the Mental Capacity Act.