This article addresses the manner in which accounts of profits are quantified when they are ordered against fiduciaries. Unlike previous scholarship, which has often sought to explain recent case law by reference to preconceived conceptual models, the present article addresses the topic by drawing on the reasoning adopted in the cases over a longer period, with a view to helping with the practical resolution of future cases, while also offering arguments drawn from that analysis as to the correct approach to the conceptual questions that arise.

There has always been considerable uncertainty about the nature and scope of the rule by which contractual performance is excused if illegal in the place of performance, even though performance would not be illegal by the contract's governing law. This article revisits the so-called “Ralli Bros rule” and looks at how the scope of the rule has been developed and its nature misunderstood. It argues that the rule is neither a choice of law rule nor part of the rules discharging a contract for frustration but is instead a public policy rule favouring judicial abstention for reasons of comity. This has implications for how the rule interacts with the choice of law rules for contracts under the Rome Convention and the Rome I Regulation.

We use doctrines of identification to explain how corporations may commit criminal offences in their own right, but current versions thereof have several shortcomings. Here, I suggest that reformulating the identification doctrine to treat all corporate officers and employees as embodying the corporation when acting within their real or ostensible authority, might remedy these shortcomings. Arguments against the resulting expansion of corporate criminal liability are unconvincing, especially when juxtaposed with the criminal law's response to similar arguments made on behalf of natural persons. This may indicate that we should also moderate the criminal law's harshness towards natural persons.

Claims of conscience are a substantial area of concern in relation to healthcare decisions but are often only considered in a limited context. Broadening our understanding of claims of conscience, however, might lead to claims that we are moving back towards a doctor-centred understanding of medical care. This article argues that we can allow claims of conscience without unduly penalising patients by focusing on the responsibilities that ought to attach to conscience claims. This article sets out three responsibilities – humility, universality and reciprocal respect – which ought to be part of any claim of conscience. The Charlie Gard case is then used as an example to explore the use of responsibilities. The article then moves to consider possible issues that arise from this view.

The UK Supreme Court noted in Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police that the approach to causation in claims based on Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is “looser” than in negligence. While the but-for test is generally applied in negligence, in Article 2 claims “it appears sufficient generally to establish merely that [the claimant] lost a substantial chance” of avoiding harm. The English courts have not always been comfortable with this divergence. In Re E. (A Child) Lady Hale stated that she was “troubled by the rejection of the ‘but for’ test” by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In part this discomfort seems attributable to a lack of detailed exposition as to how the approaches to causation differ in negligence and human rights law. The lack of clarity as to what the “looser” approach consists of is unsatisfactory. Although the reference to causation in Smith was a relatively minor observation in the wider decision not to develop the duty of care owed by the police in negligence to a victim of crime, we cannot appreciate whether the difference in approach is justified without first understanding what the difference actually is. In response, one aim of this paper is to draw together key decisions on causation in the ECHR to identify what the “looser” approach entails and how it differs from the approach in negligence.