Reviewing Directors’ Business Judgements: Views from the Field

Directors take decisions that can have significant impacts on others, as illustrated by the global financial crisis and the collapse of Thomas Cook Group plc. Yet many academics argue that courts should not review or impose liability on directors for poor business judgements. These arguments often rely on untested empirical assumptions about directors’ behaviour and attitudes. Through semi-structured interviews and focus groups, we explored the responses of directors, legal practitioners, company secretaries, and board headhunters to the prospect of judicial review of directors’ business judgements. Our findings challenge orthodox thinking: many directors supported some form of review and the impact of review may not be as great as the literature predicts, nor necessarily detrimental. The debate about whether courts should review directors’ business judgements should therefore move away from reliance on negative empirical assumptions about the impact of review, to clearly articulating, and engaging with, normative positions that underpin opposition to, and support for, review.     

The Effects of Medical Accidents and Litigation on Doctors and Patients*

Medical accidents and litigation can have a profound and long lasting effect on both doctors and patients. Research has shown that for doctors, working in a profession which is intrinsically stressful, the added stress of litigation and accidents is leading to considerable strain and sometimes to maladaptive and inappropriate behaviors on the part of some doctors. For many it is leading to the practice of defensive medicine. For patients the picture is not better. Some are left with no clear idea of what has happened or why they have been injured by their medical treatment. Many are left needing further remedial treatment and for some the psychological effects are akin to those suffered by victims of major disasters. In this paper we have looked at these issues and have put forward proposals to suggest how things can be improved for both doctors and patients.     

Jurisprudential Oaks from Mythical Acorns: The Hart-Dworkin Debate Revisited

Abstract. This article attempts to demonstrate, via the famous Hart-Dworkin debate on the nature and functions of judicial discretion, that substantial jurisprudential disputes as well as theories can, and do, arise from misconceived critiques, whether intended or otherwise. It also seeks to show that, whilst Dworkin's initial critique of Hart was misconceived, his theory of adjudication that arose as a result of responses to his initial views is a positive contribution to learning, although 1 argue that Dworkin's views are not, in the final analysis, sufficiently persuasive to constitute a radical departure from Hart's own views.     

A Friend Indeed? From Tobruk to El Alamein: The American Contribution to Victory in the Desert

The article offers a re-evaluation of American reinforcement for the Eighth Army following the fall of Tobruk in June 1942, arguing that American arms and air power made a decisive, if largely unrecognized, contribution to the victory at El Alamein. Both British and American leaders, for their own reasons, glossed over the critical American component of this most quintessentially British victory, and historians have echoed this downplaying of American aid. The article sets these political and military events in the context of expanding American interest in the Middle East.