Ex Turpi Causa: Reformation not Revolution

Seldom has an area of law been so afflicted with uncertainties and contradictions as the illegality defence and rarely have judicial opinions been so sharply divided as in the Supreme Court decision in Patel v Mirza where nine Justices examined the issue of the correct approach to the illegality defence. Six of them endorsed the ‘range of factors’ approach, whereas three condemned it. This paper defends the majority's approach against the minority's criticisms but argues that refinements should be made to it in order to address the uncertainty that may arise from its application.     

Attribution in Company Law

In Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) v Nazir (No 2), the Court of Appeal held that the ex turpi causa defence was inapplicable by refusing to attribute the fraud of the directors and the sole shareholder to the company in connection with the company's claim against them and third party co‐conspirators. It is significant that the court has not only clarified the law in relation to attribution, but it did so by rejecting the majority's reasoning and endorsing the dissenting judgment in the House of Lords decision in Stone & Rolls (in liquidation) v Moore Stephens (a firm). This article evaluates the decision in Bilta by critically examining the fundamental principles and policies that apply to the three distinct circumstances under which corporate attribution should or should not take place.     

The ex turpi causa principle in Hounga and Servier

In Hounga v Allen the majority of the Supreme Court employed a test for the application of the ex turpi causa defence involving the balancing of public policy arguments for and against allowing the defence. Although this has attracted some early academic support, this note will argue it is inconsistent with authority and principle. The later decision in Servier v Apotex does not address the Hounga decision directly but strongly endorses a more conservative approach to the ex turpi causa principle. The resulting tension between these two Supreme Court decisions is likely further to destabilise the law in this area. This note advances arguments in favour of the Servier approach, summarises both decisions in terms of their consistency with authority and considers the ways in which Servier may have limited the effects of Hounga.     

How to deal with resale price maintenance: What can we learn from empirical results?

The US Supreme Court’s overruling of the pre-existing per se illegality of resale price maintenance and the recommendation of a rule of reason approach in the Leegin decision (Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. vs. PSKS, Inc., 2007), raise the question whether other jurisdictions should follow this approach and what future assessments of resale price maintenance cases should look like. Policy decisions have to rely on the importance of various theories concerning welfare effects of resale price maintenance practices, which must be supported by empirical studies. The paper focuses on empirically confirmed theoretical arguments for the analysis and discussion of existing assessment proposals. Furthermore, the paper derives a new recommended assessment procedure for resale price maintenance from a special point of view by combining empirical results with the decision-theoretic approach of optimal sequential investigation rules.     

The Bermuda Islands blow ‘sweet & sour’ on employers’ liability for Internet libel

The Bermudian Supreme Court (at first instance) recently ruled in Bermuda Restaurants Limited (t/a “Chopsticks”) v. Jonathan Daspin and ConvergEx Global Markets Ltd. (Civil Jurisdiction 2008: No. 134 (to be reported)) on the issue of whether an employer (here, a company) should be held liable for an allegedly libellous email publication by its employee, the managing director. The Judge was asked by the employer company to determine two issues of law which exposed the company and which centred on its vicarious liability for its employee's actions, including whether the use of the company's email system, during working hours, made it complicit in the publication. The Court held, applying principles of English and Canadian law, that the company was not vicariously liable and by extension that it was not the email's publisher.     

A Purposive Approach to Employment Protection or a Missed Opportunity?

This note discusses how far the Supreme Court judgment in Autoclenz Ltd v Belcher and others provides grounds for a purposive interpretation of the contract of employment for employment protection purposes, or whether its scope is limited to the specific issue of considering the validity of boilerplate contractual terms. The author reflects on the approach taken by the Supreme Court and how far issues of inequality and substantive fairness within employment relationships have been addressed. The note concludes that whilst the judgment has extended the context of facts to be considered to include a consideration of relative bargaining power, this in itself does not extend to a consideration of substantive fairness nor does it clarify the standards that should apply to a fair employment relationship.     

死刑控制与最高人民法院的功能定位

死刑控制与最高人民法院的关系是社会各界关注的热点问题。分析表明,2007年以来最高人民法院全面收回死刑复核权,对其自身造成了一系列影响;最高人民法院的内部结构与实际功能,由此发生了深刻变化。这些变化并不完全符合现代法治理念下最高人民法院的功能定位。未来应该在考虑政治与社会条件的基础上,有步骤地改造最高人民法院在死刑控制方面的工作职能与方式,以减轻最高人民法院不必要的工作负担与资源消耗,促进最高人民法院将更多的资源用于应对更加宏观、复杂的问题。     

Applications for release by Australians in Victoria found not guilty of offences of violence by reason of mental impairment

Much research in relation to mental illness and the law has concentrated upon when accused persons are entitled to avail themselves of the defence of not guilty by reason of insanity or mental impairment. However, the decision as to when persons found not guilty by such pleas should be released step by step back into the community involves difficult analyses of the risk of recidivism by persons who have committed serious acts of violence whilst mentally ill. This article analyses some 70 cases heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Australia since the jurisdiction to make such decisions has been transferred from the executive arm of government to the judiciary. The jurisprudence generated by the Victorian Supreme Court constitutes Australia's most developed law in relation to prediction of dangerousness. This article evaluates the different and subtle dynamics that have influenced the judges in an increasingly sophisticated way to grapple with the phenomenon of mental illness in deciding when persons who have already killed can safely be released from involuntary detention status within the confines of a forensic psychiatric institution back into the general community.     

Gag orders: Shields or swords in the constitutional conflict between fair trial and free press?

In 1976, in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Supreme Court characterized gag orders as the “most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”; Yet courts impose gag orders that restrict media coverage of courts and trial participants. Many groups believe the use of gag orders is increasing. However, no previous study has attempted to quantify the frequency of gag orders or to explore judicial attitudes about the issuance of such orders. This analysis of the case law and exploratory survey of judges in Florida suggests that courts issue gag orders to protect fair trials, participant safety and privacy, and the sanctity of the courtroom.

This article also suggests that conflict over gag orders arises because judges disagree about the core meanings of the First and Sixth Amendments. This research indicates that judges' individual interpretations of the Constitution color their determinations of whether indirect gags on trial participants, rather than on the media, are impermissible assaults on the First Amendment or are permissible shields of fair trials. Judges tend to be either First Amendment apostles or Sixth Amendment followers, and Sixth Amendment judges are more likely to impose and uphold gag orders. The authors suggest that this schism is unlikely to be resolved without guidance from the Supreme Court.     

Regina v. Butler: The harms approach and freedom of expression

In Regina v. Butler the Supreme Court of Canada explicitly accepted the argument that obscenity law should be based on harm rather than morality. The court's opinion, and the view of certain feminists, depends heavily on social science research that shows exposure to some pornographic materials may have harmful effects. However, an analysis of these studies indicates that the findings encompass a wide range of stimuli and are not limited to pornography. Based on the research, the court's shift to a harms approach should logically include all presentations containing harmful messages, regardless of the degree of sexual explicitness. As such, this article argues that the court has not really abandoned its moral approach to obscenity. It has just disguised it by adopting the rhetoric of harmfulness.     

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).     

非法行医案件中行政执法与刑事司法的衔接——兼评最高人民法院有关司法解释

我国对非法行医分别在刑法和行政法中做出规定,二者概念及内涵的本质区别是行政违法与犯罪。非法行医案件中行政违法与犯罪的界限,应从主体和客观方面予以准确界分。为了非法行医案件中行政执法与刑事司法的有效衔接,应完善案件移送与接受机制,规范案件移送中的证据转化,厘清行政处罚与刑罚的关系。最高人民法院的有关司法解释量化了非法行医中违法与犯罪的界限,有利于司法实践,但仍有不足之处。     

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.     

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.     

Sienkiewicz v Greif (UK) Ltd and Willmore v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council: A Material Contribution to Uncertainty?

In the conjoined cases of Sienkiewicz and Willmore, the Supreme Court decided that the exceptional Fairchild approach to the proof of causation in negligence applied where a mesothelioma victim had been negligently exposed to asbestos by one defendant at a level well below unavoidable environmental asbestos exposure. The negligent exposures in both cases materially increased the risk of mesothelioma thereby satisfying the Fairchild test. Whilst reasserting the primacy of the common law as governing the rules of causation in mesothelioma cases, the Supreme Court failed to clarify the scope of the Fairchild exception. Moreover, in an extensive obiter discussion of epidemiological evidence, the Supreme Court has raised more questions than it has answered relating to the role, if any, of scientific evidence in the law of toxic torts.     

Remedies for Breach of Trust

The decision of the Supreme Court in AIB Group (UK) Plc v Mark Redler & Co confirms the approach taken by Lord Browne‐Wilkinson in Target Holdings Ltd v Redferns: where a trustee misapplies trust assets, a beneficiary is limited to a claim for equitable compensation for losses caused by the trustee's breach of duty. This seems to be a departure from traditional equitable doctrine, which held that the beneficiary could falsify the trustee's unauthorised disbursement and bring a claim for an ‘equitable debt’. This note considers the impact of the decision of the Supreme Court, and how the law regarding ‘equitable compensation’ might continue to develop.     

From Hyderabad to Harvard: how US law schools make it worthwhile to clerk on India's Supreme Court

Since the 1990s, judges of the Supreme Court of India have hired law clerks to help them perform some of their routine tasks. However, while clerkships on the U.S. Supreme Court are considered very prestigious and are extensively written about, clerkships on India's Supreme Court are considered to be of significantly lower value by the local legal profession and teaching market in India. Instead, ironically, clerkships on the Supreme Court of India are often pursued by students interested in getting an advanced law degree (usually an LL.M.) at a U.S. law school. Relying on interviews conducted with law clerks and interns who have served on the Supreme Court of India, and using India as a case study, this paper argues that ambitious Indian law students are adopting strategies to “Americanize” themselves in order to culturally arbitrage U.S. law schools' misunderstandings of the global legal profession.     

Unfair Contract Terms,Unfair Prices and Bank Charges

This note considers how the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 1993 draws the line between the review of unfair contract terms and the review of unfair contracts (and, in particular, unfair prices) in the context of two cases concerning bank charges: Abbey Life plc v The Office of Fair Trading (2009) (the Bank Charges case) in the UK Supreme Court and Case 484/08 Caja de Madrid (2010) in the European Court of Justice. The note explains the proper question to be addressed by a court for this purpose under article 4(2) of the Directive and criticises the Supreme Court's approach to the interpretation of article 4(2) and its application of the UK regulation implementing this article to the circumstances in the Bank Charges case.     

Black Spiders Weaving Webs: The Constitutional Implications of Executive Veto of Tribunal Determinations

In R (Evans) v Attorney General, the Supreme Court quashed the Attorney General's statutory veto of the Upper Tribunal's original determination made under freedom of information legislation. The Upper Tribunal had held that so‐called ‘advocacy’ memos should be published after a full hearing on the merits. The Supreme Court split five to two, with the lead judgment of Lord Neuberger using constitutional rather than administrative language and focusing on the rule of law. This note raises four objections to the lead judgment. First, it argues that the Upper Tribunal was acting in an executive not judicial capacity and the veto was not therefore a breach of the rule of law. Secondly it suggests the veto clause is best understood as a variant Henry VIII clause. Thirdly, it suggests Lord Neuberger's judgment is founded on a paradox. Finally, it argues that the judgment undermines parliamentary sovereignty. Future implications are then considered.     

Making sense of the case law on Ombudsman schemes

This article analyses the case law on ombudsman schemes in the UK, with the purpose of identifying some of the key trends that underpin this branch of law pre-the first Supreme Court decision in this area, JR55 v Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints. While the law on ombudsman schemes remains based on legislation and the various grounds of administrative law available in judicial review, distinct bespoke principles have also been relied upon. These principles are beginning to provide consistent guidance on how the law should be used and interpreted in cases involving an ombudsman scheme. One task of the Supreme Court in JR55 will be to confirm these principles, or rationalize any departure from them.