Belize It or Not: Implied Contract Terms in Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas

In Marks and Spencer v BNP Paribas, the Supreme Court restated the law on the implication of terms in fact, rejecting the previously authoritative approach taken by Lord Hoffmann in Attorney General of Belize v Belize Telecom Ltd. This article examines two major departures from Belize in Lord Neuberger's leading judgment: the treatment of implication as a process separate from interpretation, and a return to the ‘traditional tests’ for the implication of terms. It argues that these are retrogressive steps in our understanding of contract terms, which risk fostering an incoherent and unprincipled approach to the law.     

Doctor in Trouble: Anderson v Gorrie and the Extension of Judicial Immunity from Suit in the 1890s

This article explores the case of Anderson v Gorrie (1894) in which the Court of Appeal completed the immunity of judges from suit for actions whilst ostensibly sitting judicially and within their jurisdiction. They subsequently rejected an argument for an extension of the ambit of the decision in Dimes v Grand Junction Canal Company to judges sitting in a case in which they had an interest. The strength of the fortifications the judiciary had built around itself, erected on the bones of Anderson and others, must have been influenced by the concerns the judges felt – concerns with the influx of litigants in person, who sometimes pursued their cases all the way to the Lords, benefiting from the in forma pauperis procedure.     

Law's Allure in American Politics and Policy: What It Is,What It Is Not,and What It Might Yet Be

Responding to a set of review essays, the author of Law's Allure: How Law Shapes, Constrains, Saves, and Kills Politics ( Silverstein 2009 ) argues that politicians and policy entrepreneurs fail to calculate the risks of juridification—the judicialization of policy combined with the legalization of politics itself—which have expanded and accelerated in the United States in recent decades. Paradigmatic case studies (on subjects including poverty, electoral districting, automated budgeting, war powers, abortion laws, and the regulation of tobacco as well as the environment) illustrate the risks of various patterns of juridification and construct an agenda for future research.     

Natural Resource Damages for Climate Change—An Idea Whose Time Is Not Yet Come,Part I: NRD Claims Are Not Currently Viable under CERCLA

As the effects of climate change are felt, affected parties will seek redress in the legal system. Numerous suits have already been filed and this may only be the beginning of a trend. One type of suit that has not yet been filed is the natural resource damage (NRD) claim under CERCLA. While it is unlikely that climate change-based NRD claims could succeed under current law, it may only be a matter of time before they are brought. With the present legal landscape in mind, this article examines statutory requirements under CERCLA to bring a climate change related NRD claim.     

A Strange Sort of Survival for Pinnel's Case: Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Limited

This note discusses the decision of the Court of Appeal in Collier v P & M J Wright (Holdings) Limited , and notes that while the Court purports to uphold both the decision in Pinnel's Case and the effect of Re Selectmove , in fact, by an extension of promissory estoppel, it bypasses them.     

Patents and enantiomers: Generics v Lundbeck

Legal context: This article examines a decision of the English Patents Courtin relation to the validity of a patent claiming a single enantiomer(a particular molecular form) of a known pharmaceutical compound. Key points: The court held that while it would have been obvious to theskilled person at the priority date to prepare the single enantiomerof the drug claimed in the patent, the actual method of preparationtaught by the patent was not obvious. The attack on groundsof lack of inventive step therefore failed. However, the factthat the patent taught only one method of preparation, but soughtto claim the single enantiomer however prepared meant that theclaims (other than the method claim) were invalid on the groundsof insufficiency. Practical significance: This case demonstrates the formidable difficulties in obtaininga valid patent for a single enantiomer of a known pharmaceutical.While claims to a method of preparation can be valid, providedthe usual requirements of novelty, inventive step, etc. aremet, a patent claiming a single enantiomer of a known compoundper se will be likely to be invalid on the grounds of obviousnessor insufficiency.     

Politics and the police in Scotland: The impact of devolution

The creation of a Scottish Parliament and Scottish government in 1999, under the process of devolution within the UK, created a significantly different constitutional and political landscape from that which preceded it. The impact on domestic issues in Scotland, such as policing, has been considerable. This is partly because of new structural arrangements, including the creation of a Justice Minister and a Justice Committee of the Parliament, and partly because of the significance of the law and order agenda within Scottish politics. This paper discusses the impact of these developments on the Scottish police. Analysis focuses on the growing involvement of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish governments in key areas such as constabulary independence, police accountability and the management of police resources. Through this discussion, the paper seeks to make a contribution to the debate about the relationship between the police and politics, and the extent to which policing in Scotland is becoming increasingly politicised.     

Dead Man Walking: Law and Ethics After Giorgio Agamben's Auschwitz

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique -     

Redfearn v UK: Political Association and Dismissal

In Redfearn v UK the European Court of Human Rights examined the question whether dismissal for membership of a political party is compatible with freedom of association under Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court endorsed a strong commitment to multi‐party democracy and protection of employees against the domination of the employers. This note discusses the judgment and its implications for UK law, looking at three key issues: first, whether the law of unfair dismissal provides effective protection against action that poses a threat to the enjoyment of Convention rights; second, the grounds under which an employer may justify the lawfulness of a dismissal that interferes with a Convention right; third, the available remedies against the employer when there is a breach of a Convention right.