论虚假陈述民事案件的诉讼方式

在民众的强烈期盼下,最高人民法院终于做出司法解释宣布受理虚假陈述民事赔偿案件,但是由于其固守传统民事诉讼模式,难以有效地解决人数众多的虚假陈述民事赔偿问题。笔者认为应当借鉴美国的集团诉讼机制以及德、法两国的团体诉讼的先进经验,改造我国已有的代表人诉讼制度,以解决虚假陈述民事案件的诉讼方式问题。     

Lord Cooke of Thorndon (1926–2006): 51 Years in the Law

This article provides an in‐depth analysis of the landmark ‘cash for query’ judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The scope of parliamentary privileges in India, as well as in England and America, is examined, particularly with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts. The present position in the law of parliamentary privileges in India was laid down in the case of Raja Ram Pal v The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, &; Ors. The Supreme Court of India has extensively dwelled on the matter and has delivered a judgment, which is by far the most comprehensive decision in this field of law. The author notes in the analysis that the difference between the English and Indian constitutional systems is of crucial significance. The conflicts between the judiciary and parliament in England arose because of the sovereignty of parliament, and the judiciary had to fight for every inch of its jurisdiction in England. The judiciary had to contend with Parliament not only as a legislative body, but also by virtue of being the ‘High Court of Parliament’, as a superior court. Because of these reasons, the case law from British constitutional history does not have strict applicability in India. The decision of the Supreme Court of India in Raja Ram Pal v The Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, &; Ors, is a clear expression of a very basic feature of the Indian constitutional mechanism: where the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and all governmental organs, which owe their origin to the Constitution and derive their powers from its provisions, must function within its framework.     

论证券欺诈民事案件的诉讼方式

针对证券市场上在信息公开方面存在的严重问题 ,最高人民法院作出司法解释 ,宣布受理虚假陈述民事赔偿案件 ,但是由于其固守传统的民事诉讼模式 ,难以有效地解决人数众多的证券民事赔偿案件。笔者认为 ,应当借鉴美国的集团诉讼机制以及德、法两国团体诉讼的先进经验 ,改造我国已有的代表人诉讼制度 ,以解决证券欺诈民事案件的诉讼方式问题。     

Insurance Fraud and the Role of the Civil Law

Two UK Supreme Court decisions have considered insurance fraud. The first, Versloot Dredging BV v HDI‐Gerling Industries Versicherung (The DC Merwestone), concerned the use of a fraudulent device being harnessed to support a legitimate claim which, in the view of the majority, was an area of insurance law in need of re‐evaluation. The second, Haywood v Zurich Insurance Co, concerned the use of fraud to increase the settlement paid by the insurer and whether an insurer, which suspects fraud but has nevertheless chosen to settle a claim, is entitled to set aside the settlement under the tort of deceit where it subsequently discovers proof that it was in fact fraudulent. This case note examines not only the legal implications of the decisions and their likely impact on industry practice, it also focuses on the broader issue of the proper province of the civil law and whether general deterrence can be justified as a proper objective where the criminal law is deficient in punishing fraud because of its higher standard of proof.     

The impact of the recent Supreme Court rulings in Pegram and Rush Prudential on state regulation of managed care organizations

Over the past two decades, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) has shielded managed care organizations (MCOs) from liability for negligent treatment or coverage decisions. This Article examines the Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of ERISA preemption, and assesses the impact of these recent decisions on state regulation of MCOs. The author concludes that recent decisions in Pegram v. Herdrich and Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran have broadened the states' power to regulate MCOs and enhance the ability of injured plaintiffs to sue such organizations under state tort law.     

Access to medicine and the dangers of patent linkage: lessons from Bayer Corp v. Union of India

In February 2010, the Delhi High Court delivered its decision in Bayer Corp v Union of India in which Bayer had appealed against an August 2009 decision of the same court. Both decisions prevented Bayer from introducing the concept of patent linkage into India's drug regulatory regime. Bayer appealed to the Indian Supreme Court, the highest court in India, which agreed on 2 March 2010 to hear the appeal. Given that India is regarded as a global pharmaceutical manufacturer of generic medications, how its judiciary and government perceive their international obligations has a significant impact on the global access to medicines regime. In rejecting the application of patent linkage, the case provides an opportunity for India to further acknowledge its international human rights obligations.     

Supreme Court finds red cross negligent in screening blood donors

On 19 April 2001, the Supreme Court of Canada released its first judgments in litigation alleging the Canadian Red Cross Society was negligent for inadequately screening blood donors in the early 1980s. It upheld an order that damages in the amount of over $2.5 million be paid to three individuals who contracted HIV between 1983 and 1985 from contaminated blood.     

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.     

Closing the Floodgates on Privacy Class Actions: Lloyd v Google LLC

In Lloyd v Google LLC [2021] UKSC 50, the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal's decision, which had allowed a claim under the Data Protection Act 1998 to proceed as a representative action under CPR 19.6. This is significant because the Court of Appeal's decision arguably paved the way for further data protection/privacy claims to be brought as opt-out ‘class actions’ using this procedure. This case note summarises the Supreme Court decision and assesses its implications for both the procedural law of collective redress and the substantive law of privacy in England. It argues that the Supreme Court's reasoning in relation to both of these areas is sound as a matter of precedent and statutory construction. As a matter of public policy, the decision is likely to re-enliven debate about the availability of collective redress in English law and whether the existing collective proceedings regime should be broadened.     

The Right to Environmental Protection in India: Many a Slip between the Cup and the Lip?

India is one of the first jurisdictions to have embraced an environmental right, and 'fostered an extensive and innovative jurisprudence' on it. The Indian Supreme Court has held the principles of precaution, polluter pays and inter-generational equity as well as the public trust doctrine as integral to the corpus of Indian law. There is, however, many a slip between the cup and the lip, and this article explores some of these slips in detail. It argues that the constitutionally guaranteed environmental right is poorly defined, and therefore offers little guidance in making difficult judgments central to an exercise of this right. After an analysis of relevant case law, it finds that at least some of the principles intended to guide the actualization of the environmental right do little more than create a smokescreen, which renders application and implementation difficult, and obfuscates the hard questions. It also argues that the judicial discretion available to judges in public interest environmental litigation, in combination with the proliferation of imprecise rights, allows the judiciary's preferences for certain rights and certain modes of argumentation to prevail. It concludes however that, notwithstanding these concerns, the Indian Supreme Court deserves credit for having delivered a vast number of environmentally sensitive decisions, and for its willingness to embrace innovative and progressive conceptual tools in the service of environmental protection.     

US: hospital negligent for failing to warn prior patient of risk of HIV infection by transfusion

The Supreme Court of Tennessee has ruled that a university hospital was negligent for not contacting patients who had received blood transfusions in the early 1980s to advise them of the risk of HIV infection. In Amos v Vanderbilt University, it awarded US$4.3 million in damages to the estate and family of a woman who died eight years after receiving HIV-tainted blood during surgery.     

Koushal v Naz: Judges Vote to Recriminalise Homosexuality

In Koushal v Naz the Indian Supreme Court overturned a High Court judgment which had declared unconstitutional section 377 of the Indian Penal Code criminalising ‘carnal intercourse against the order of nature’. In doing so, it has rebranded gay and transgendered Indians as criminals. This case note explores some of the structural problems that led to this judgment. The first problem is the transformation of the Indian Supreme Court into a populist, quasi‐legislative, institution that sees itself as a tool of governance. This has put significant pressure on its counter‐majoritarian role. The second relates to the sheer size of the Court's docket (given its wide jurisdiction and lax standing rules), coupled with the Indian legal academy's inability and unwillingness to continuously demand judicial fidelity to the law. These factors have led to the normalisation of unreasoned or poorly‐reasoned judgments and a breakdown of stare decisis.     

Consent,Fraud and Family Law

In two recent cases the Supreme Court unanimously clarified that one party's fraudulent non-disclosure of material facts 'unravels' any agreement made in their absence. Because the parties' agreement is a sine qua non of a consent order, the order may be set aside, despite the desirability in family law of clean break and certainty. Victims of fraud in matrimonial proceedings should not be left in a worse position than victims in other civil proceedings. However, while consistency across different areas of civil law was important here, are there any circumstances in which inconsistency may be justified?     

RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions: Empowering Tribunals to Enforce the Human Rights Act 1998

In RR v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – follow-on litigation from the high-profile bedroom tax cases – the Supreme Court handed down a judgment which has significant implications for social security law, the interpretation of the Human Rights Act, the tribunals system, the judicial control of delegated legislation, and access to justice. Central, however, was the issue of the enforceability of human rights. We argue that the Supreme Court was not only justified in its interpretation of the Human Rights Act but that it has made the protections of the Act more easily enforceable.     

The Linguistics of Misrepresentation: Intentions and Truth Values

During contractual negotiations, one party may lead the other into error, thus causing loss or damage. If misrepresentation is shown, the aggrieved party may therefore claim for damages or rescission. In the English law, it was for many years unclear whether a finding of misrepresentation required proof of deliberate, intentional fraud, or whether it could be analysed as a simple failure of consensus, in which case it would be sufficient to show negligence. According to the traditional rule, the misleading declaration had to be factually false, and concern an existing state of affairs or a verifiable past event. However, expressions of personal opinion or of future intention can mislead, although they cannot sensibly be considered as true or false. Further, in practice, many literally true sentences are liable to give false impressions. Such statements may be ambiguous or only partly true. Like linguists and ethical philosophers, the judges are confronted with recursive problems of understanding and re-interpretation. Citations from a number of celebrated English cases are given to show that in spite of significant developments, no legal rules or principles can satisfactorily account for intuitions concerning intentional behaviour and morality.     

No (,) More Bolam Please: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board concerned a negligent non‐disclose of certain risks involved in natural birth. The Supreme Court departed from Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital, which formerly governed negligent risk disclosure. A new test was adopted: risks that are material must be disclosed, the materiality of a risk to be decided by reference to a reasonable person in the patient's position, or where the medical professional should be reasonably aware a particular patient is likely to attach significance to that risk. The Court emphasised risk disclosure practices must focus on what the patient wants to know. Yet the Court's portrayal of this change as a development of Sidaway is questionable. The decision is problematic in its engagement with precedent, the new test's future implications and statements regarding therapeutic privilege. Despite rejecting Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee's relevance to risk disclosure, this case is likely to remain relevant.     

Oregon's guidelines for physician-assisted suicide: a legal and ethical analysis

Oregon's Death with Dignity Act was first passed by a ballot initiative in 1994, but numerous judicial challenges delayed implementation of the Act. In November of 1997, following the United States Supreme Court decisions in Vacco v. Quill and Washington v. Glucksberg, which left the states' power to regulate physician-assisted suicide undisturbed, the Oregon voters upheld their law. Oregon remains the only state in the nation to authorize physician-assisted suicide. The Task Force to Improve the Care of Terminally Ill Oregonians published a Guidebook for health care providers on the Oregon Act, and the New England Journal of Medicine recently issued a special report on the first year's experience under the Act. This paper analyzes the legal context of the Oregon Death with Dignity Act, discusses the efficacy of the tenets in the Guidebook, and explores ethical issues underlying the guidelines, particularly those pertaining to the meaning of a patient's request for assisted suicide and processes supporting informed consent.     

Sharia Courts and Muslim Personal Law in India: Intersecting Legal Regimes

In July 2005, a Delhi lawyer filed suit with the Supreme Court of India seeking to ban “sharia courts” (dar ul qazas) and Islamic legal opinions, arguing that they constitute a “parallel judicial system” that undermines the state's legal institutions. The Supreme Court decided in 2014 that dar ul qazas are not parallel but appropriate alternative forums. In this article, I analyze several divorce cases in Delhi and Patna dar ul qazas to show that, rather than being alternative or parallel, dar ul qazas intersect with state courts. Attending to this intersection, I argue, has implications for how we understand legal pluralism, secularism, and the relation between them. Specifically, I argue that because of how cases travel between dar ul qazas and state courts, dar ul qazas help to consolidate the oppositions between religious and secular law, kin relations, and rights upon which secularism relies.     

Truth and Consequences: Law,Myth and Metaphor in American Indian Contested Adoption

This article considers the effects of the operations of myth and metaphor on law through a comparison of a United States Supreme Court decision and a novel that deal with the contested trans-racial adoption of an American Indian child. It argues that the United States founding myth of Manifest Destiny—of the divinely ordained fate of the continent to host a (white) Christian state—is determinative of the way in which legal decisions regarding American Indians are made. The myth of Manifest Destiny contains a metaphor of vanished American Indians, such that contemporary American Indians are rendered nearly invisible and whose existence is not easily absorbed into the working of the American legal system. The American Indian Child Welfare Act provides protections against assimilation for indigenous families and community, thus working at cross-purposes to the ultimate aim of Manifest Destiny. What happens in those instances when legal provisions and interpretation run counter to Manifest Destiny? Through the consideration of the situation of a contested adoption, this article reveals the heavy influence of Manifest Destiny in the Supreme Court decision, which is counter to the vision of a pluralistic culture envisioned in both the novel and the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) itself. The consequences of legal resistance to ICWA for American Indian communities and as to the operation of the legal system itself are discussed.     

《消费者权益保护法》中“欺诈”的解释方法改进

司法实践中,人民法院对《消费者权益保护法》第55条规定的"欺诈"有四种解释。这是对"欺诈"的文义在行政解释与民法解释之间进行抉择的结果,忽略了追问《消费者权益保护法》上欺诈者对前置义务的违反,且未对消费者是否确受误导,所受损失是否与欺诈行为形成因果关系进行深入剖析。这是长期以来将经济法上的"欺诈"等同于民法上"欺诈"造成的痼疾,故而无法理清实际损失与惩罚性赔偿请求权是否可分开主张,更无法对知假买假行为形成公允评价。应当在文义解释的基础上进一步运用体系解释方法,以欺诈行为与《消费者权益保护法》第3章关于质量、价格、如实宣传等经营者义务间对应关系为依据,阐释欺诈者违反不同前置义务的责任形态,并以《消费者权益保护法》力求形成经营者—消费者共治的价值理念,通过目的解释剥夺消费者恶意破坏市场秩序时对经营者主张欺诈责任的资格。