Consultation Paper on Common-Law Tests of Capacity

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
British Columbia Law Institute
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Consultation Paper

scholarly journals Legal Limits on the Structured Settlement of Damages

1993 ◽  
Vol 52 (3) ◽  
pp. 470-486
Author(s):  
Richard lewis
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Favourable Response ◽  
Radical Reform ◽  
Lump Sum ◽  
Legal Limits ◽  
Annuity Market ◽  
Consultation Paper ◽  
Law Commission

A structured settlement is a new way of paying common law damages for personal injury or death. It has received strong support from the judiciary and a very favourable response from the Law Commission in its recent consultation paper. The defendant's insurer, usually after having informally agreed a lump sum figure with the plaintiff, will agree to convert part of the damages into a series of periodic payments. To fund the arrangement the insurer purchases an annuity from a life office. The payments are “structured” to meet the individual's needs and are free of tax in the plaintiffs hands. This is because the Revenue have accepted that they may be considered instalments of capital rather than income. In return for making this arrangement the insurer will bargain for a discount on the conventional lump sum figure. Although the first structure was put in place as long ago as 1981, they were not used in other than a few isolated cases until 1991. Now there are almost two hundred of them, and the annuity market, worth £30 million last year, is expected to grow rapidly. Their increasing use constitutes the most radical reform of our damages system effected in recent years.

“Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment?” – A Common Law Response

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 326-337
Author(s):  
Steve Hedley
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
German Law ◽  
Unjust Enrichment ◽  
Level Of Abstraction ◽  
The Law ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment ◽  
High Level ◽  
Logical Process

In this article, Professor Steve Hedley offers a Common Law response to he recently published arguments of Professor Nils Jansen on the German law of unjustified enrichment (as to which, see Jansen, “Farewell to Unjustified Enrichment” (2016) 20 EdinLR 123). The author takes the view that Jansen's paper provided a welcome opportunity to reconsider not merely what unjust enrichment can logically be, but what it is for. He argues that unjust enrichment talk contributes little of value, and that the supposedly logical process of stating it at a high level of abstraction, and then seeking to deduce the law from that abstraction, merely distracts lawyers from the equities of the cases they consider.

Scots Law: Mixed from the Very Beginning? A Tale of Two Receptions

2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
WDH Sellar
Keyword(s):  
Middle Ages ◽  
Common Law ◽  
General Meeting ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Mixed System ◽  
Annual General Meeting ◽  
Ius Commune ◽  
Profound Influence ◽  
Anglo Norman ◽  
Considerable Period

This article is the revised text of the lecture delivered to the Stair Society at its Annual General Meeting in November 1997. It defends the proposition that Scots law, from the time of its emergence in the Middle Ages, has been a “mixed” system, open to the influence of both the English Common Law and the Civilian tradition. It also compares and contrasts the Reception of the Anglo-Norman law with that of Roman law. The former was quite specific as regards both time and substantive legal content. The Reception of Roman law, on the other hand, took place over a considerable period of time, and its effects were complex and diffuse. Above all, the Civilian tradition and the wider ius commune provided an intellectual framework against which to measure Scots law. Both Receptions exercised a profound influence on the continuing development of Scots law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document