The Future of the Common Law

1913 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 595
Author(s):  
Robert Ludlow Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common

Unjustified Enrichment in Comparative Perspective

2006 ◽  
pp. 968-1002
Author(s):  
Daniel Visser
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Comparative Perspective ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
English Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Level Of Understanding ◽  
Unjustified Enrichment

Unjustified enrichment confronted both civil and common lawyers with thinking which was often completely outside the paradigm to which they had become accustomed. The recognition of unjustified enrichment as a cause of action in its own right in English law created a new arena of uncertainty between the systems. This article argues that comparative lawyers can make an important contribution to the future of the fractured and fractious world of unjustified enrichment. It may help to uncover the enormous wealth of learning of which both the common law and the civil law are the repositories, and so bring the same level of understanding to the law of unjustified enrichment which has, over the years, been achieved between the systems in regard to contract and tort.

The Future of Informed Consent in British Common Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Common Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

AbstractWithin the common law world, the use of the term informed consent implies the American doctrine. Informed consent as a doctrine is not part of the law in the United Kingdom. However, it is possible to predict a way forward in disclosure cases yet to be heard in the courts of the United Kingdom. These predictions are based on current developments in the common law in the United Kingdom as well as those in Canada and Australia, on the European convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and on trends within the medical profession itself in the light of the Bolam test.

7. The Variation, Suspension, and Future of the Personal Employment Contract

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Cabrelli
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Market Conditions ◽  
Employment Contract ◽  
The Future ◽  
Contract Of Employment ◽  
The Common ◽  
Labour Flexibility

This chapter first examines the common law rules regulating the variation of the terms of the contract of employment. It focuses on the situation where the employer seeks to unilaterally modify the terms of the employment contract, for instance in light of modern pressures on management to demand greater labour flexibility in order to adapt to changing market conditions. The chapter then moves on to address the ability of the employer to suspend the contract of employment, for instance where the employer suffers a downturn in demand for its products or services, or where an employee may be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Finally, it considers the future trajectory of the common law content of the personal contract of employment.

The Commonwealth Executive Power: Historical Constitutional Origins and the Future of the Prerogative

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Dale Greentree
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Executive Power ◽  
High Court ◽  
Historical Approach ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Common

This article argues that the Commonwealth’s non-statutory executive power should be interpreted using an ‘historical constitutional approach’, first developed by JWF Allison for the United Kingdom. Some argue that the non-statutory executive power should be informed by the Crown’s historical prerogative powers and the common law (the ‘common law view’), while the High Court has recognised an inherent ‘nationhood power’ sourced directly in section 61 of the Australian Constitution, that does not require reference to the common law or the prerogatives (the ‘inherent view’). Peter Gerangelos identified a potential jurisprudential shift after Gageler J seemingly adopted an historical approach in Plaintiff M68/2015 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2016) 257 CLR 42. This article argues that interpreting section 61 through an historical constitutional lens would be in keeping with the origins, influences, and common law limitations on the development of the Crown’s powers in Australia since Federation. This will better ensure fidelity to fundamental constitutional principles than the inherent approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document