In a judgment awaited with great apprehension, the House of Lords on 29 November 2001 refused Diane Pretty’s application to compel the Director of Public Prosecutions to give her and her husband prior assurance that her husband would not be prosecuted under section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961, were he to help her to commit suicide some time in the not too distant future, when she would clearly have communicated her wish to quit this world, but would, on account of her physical condition, be unable to accomplish her objective without the assistance of another person. The European Court of Human Rights subsequently confirmed that the exceptionless prohibition of assisted suicide, even in so far as it indirectly prevented a person in Mrs. Pretty’s physical predicament from committing suicide at all, was compatible with the United Kingdom’s obligations towards Mrs. Pretty under the European Convention on Human Rights. At the same time, there are important discrepancies between the analysis of the human rights issues in the House of Lords and the reasoning of the European Court of Human Rights. Had their Lordships realised that the scope of protection afforded to personal autonomy under the Convention includes the making of autonomous choices even in matters of life and death, and that the particularly burdensome effects of the domestic law on persons like Mrs. Pretty stood in need of separate and particular justification under Article 14, the outcome of the case might have been a different one.

This article evaluates the established judicial proposition that an agreement to negotiate in good faith is antithetical to the principles of the common law. English courts are reluctant to enforce such agreements on the ground that they constitute unenforceable “agreements to agree”. Recently, courts have started to recognise an exception in cases where parties agree to negotiate over a term mandated by an existing agreement, such as to review a price clause or resolve a dispute by undertaking negotiations in good faith. The primary arguments against enforcing an independent agreement to negotiate in good faith are threefold. First, parties engaged in good faith negotiations are assumed to lack a serious legal intention to contract. Second, such an agreement is substantively uncertain in nature and does not promise to produce a contract. Third, the failure of parties to conclude their negotiations does not lead to an easily identifiable loss. In light of these considerations, this article considers the viability of enforcing an agreement to negotiate in good faith in the absence of a pre-existing contract. It argues that the legal obstacles to recognising agreements to negotiate have been overstated. Given the commercial value of enforcing such agreements, it proposes that agreements to negotiate in good faith should be recognised and given legal content by common law courts.

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

If a German professor announces his intention of speaking on the inner relationship between English and Roman law, he must first state why he intends to do so. When I reviewed Roman law, and later on English law, from the German point of view, it struck me again and again that the two systems touch each other at many points. It is obvious that this relationship must be clearer to a person acquainted with German law (and therefore speaking as an outsider) than it is to an English student who understands his law by working within the system and appreciates it accordingly. This, then, is one justification. Since I have not been brought up in English law, I shall always remain a layman, despite all my efforts to penetrate its nature.

The number of extant reports of Slade's Case, by different hands, indicates the significance which the case possessed for contemporary lawyers. Its subsequent significance was assured by its inclusion in Coke's Reports, an honour which entitled it to all the attention which posterity is obliged to bestow on leading cases; but, for three centuries, the more that was written about it the more difficult it became to remember or to imagine what it had meant when it was decided. The case has been partially redeemed from its oblivion by recent studies, but it is becoming plain that it is still not understood, and perhaps will not be fully understood for some years to come. It is hoped that the publication of some of the leading arguments in the case, in the last issue of this Journal, will help to bring understanding within closer reach. Those arguments, however, presuppose a familiarity with the problems the case was intended to solve. Although part of the background may be learned from the published reports and Year Books, the story which they reveal is neither complete nor clear. The older cases are too sparse, too badly reported and cover too many years for any safe general conclusions to be drawn from them. They are relevant to the investigation in so far as they formed part of the Elizabethan lawyers' common education, providing a starting point for further discussion, and a recourse for those who sought authority for everything in their old books. But the burning questions in the minds of those who awaited the final pronouncement in Slade's Case were not Year Book questions, or ancient moot points, but new questions which had only come to the fore in the preceding ten or fifteen years.

Being an action on the case, it has long been supposed that negligence is consummated only upon the occurrence of damage. Physical damage ordinarily occurs where there is some change in the state or structure of a person’s body, or where there is some change in the state or structure of tangible property. The author argues that courts have, in recent wrongful conception and contamination cases, widened the orthodox notion of what constitutes physical damage. The courts have employed an ordinary bystander test in order to determine whether particular failures of care, arising in circumstances of high or unnecessary risk of physical harm, should be treated as if they give rise to physical damage. These are cases of a new form of actionable damage, that is, damage of a socially constructed kind.

There is a dearth of British tech-companies listing on the London Stock Exchange (LSE), and the LSE lacks a large, innovative tech-company such as Google. The UK Government, concerned as to the loss of UK tech-companies to foreign acquirors, views the encouragement of UK tech-firm listings as a policy priority. Dual-class stock, currently prohibited from the LSE Main Market's premium-tier, allows founders to list their firms, and retain majority-control, while holding significantly less of the cash-flow rights in the company. This article will broach the potential for dual-class stock to attract UK tech-company listings, and explore the benefits that dual-class stock can engender for UK tech-companies and their public shareholders. The risks of dual-class structures will also be discussed, but it will be shown that in a UK regulatory context, in relation to high-growth tech-companies, the risks may not be as severe as presumed, and easily moderated through judicious controls.

The decisions of the House of Lords in Caldwell and Stephen Lawrence can be read in widely differing ways. Taken at their face they are a slap-happy repudiation of the concept of recklessness that has been carefully developed in the last few years, going back to the notion that recklessness includes inadvertent negligence and working a profoundly regrettable change in the criminal law. If, on the other hand, each decision is interpreted in the light of its facts, with a sentence from one of the less conspicuous parts of Caldwell transferred to one that is thrust more prominently upon our attention, and if, as the result of this, the expressed ratio decidendi in each case is materially rewritten, they can be seen as imposing acceptable restrictions upon the requirement of a mental element in crime.

ON 16 December 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgment in the joined cases of Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), ICJ Reports 2015. These are the latest in a line of cases raising key principles of international environmental law before the ICJ, following Pulp Mills (2010), Aerial Herbicide Spraying and Whaling in the Antarctic (2014).

The 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes was the creation of the ninth session of the League of Nations. Containing important provisions on judicial settlement, as well as on conciliation and arbitration, the Act provided the Permanent Court of International Justice with an indisputable basis of jurisdiction. Whether the Act survived the demise of the League and is equally effective today is, however, a matter of some disagreement.

The Children and Families Act 2014 pursues the twin policies of increasing the number of children adopted out of compulsory state care and reducing the scope for court-ordered contact between such children and their birth families. Building upon previous work by Dr. Kirsty Hughes and me, this paper critically evaluates these reforms to post-adoption contact in view of the fact that adoption terminates the legal relationship of parent and child. Aspects of the analysis include the impact of the proposals on “open adoption” and child welfare in the light of the available empirical evidence, and their compatibility with both the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

This paper reproduces part of a lecture which I delivered in July to the students attending the special course for foreign lawyers in the University of Cambridge. Its theme was a consideration of Montesquieu's theory of the separation of powers in the British Constitution illustrated by the position of the Lord Chancellor. Being addressed to foreign students, it was largely elementary in character. But some of those who heard it thought that parts of it had a more permanent value. This is an attempt to adapt it so as to render it more suitable for The Cambridge Law Journal.

Governmental liability used to be on the retreat, especially but not only in the field of negligence liability. In Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the majority of the Court of Appeal flatly stated that not every infringement of Community law was a tort. Moreover, in the recent decision in Murphy v. Brentwood District Council the House of Lords, departing from Anns v. Merton London Borough Council, dramatically curtailed any hope—or fear, it depends on the point of view—of development of governmental liability in the field of economic loss.

This article examines the principle of legality, a principle of statutory interpretation that requires clear statutory words to oust basic common-law norms. The principle is of growing importance in the Supreme Court's public law jurisprudence, yet it has garnered little scholarly attention. This article offers a comprehensive account of the principle, unpacking its core elements and identifying key controversies. The article reveals that lying beyond this apparently straightforward principle is a complex and elaborate jurisprudence, which raises fundamental issues of principle, policy and judicial legitimacy.

Insurers are increasingly using big data analytics and artificial intelligence in rating risks and customising insurance products particularly in the context of consumer insurance. The primary aim of this article is to elaborate the extent to which the legal rules in force could ensure that consumers are not treated unfairly as a result of the use of such disruptive technologies. Relevant insurance law principles and doctrines are also considered as part of this analysis. The article concludes that despite the protection provided to consumers by data and consumer protection legislation, unregulated and unlimited use of data analytics and algorithms in the risk assessment process could create significant difficulties for consumers. It is argued that further regulation, especially making regular audits essential for insurers employing such technologies in risk assessment process, is required. The article also finds that the use of artificial intelligence in customising insurance products does not present similar degree of difficulties for consumers.

HILLEL STEINER'S book An Essay on Rights1 proposes and develops an intriguing suggestion: that we should approach the discussion of justice at “the elementary particle level”. “The elementary particles of justice” Steiner tells us “are rights”:

Rights are the items which are created and parcelled out by justice principles. We learn something about justice by examining the formal or characteristic features of rights. These features constrain the possible content of justice principles in much the same sense as architectural precepts must be informed by the properties of the construction materials they orchestrate.2

In Edwards v Chesterfield Royal Hospital N.H.S. Foundation Trust the majority of a seven-justice Supreme Court held that a common law claim for breach of express contractual disciplinary procedures was pre-empted by the statutory right to claim for unfair dismissal. Further, they held that one express term (the notice clause) should be prioritised over another (the contractual disciplinary procedure). In this article we argue that the application of the idea of statutory “trumping” of the common law misunderstands the complex evolution of the common law in this field and its interplay with statute. We also argue that the traditional pre-eminence given to notice clauses over all other express terms needs to be reconsidered.

The purpose of this article is to consider uncertainty in European Community law. It will be argued that, for reasons inherent in the nature of the Community, EC legislation is generally less clear and more difficult to interpret than British legislation. Five reasons are put forward as to why this might be so. While always undesirable, uncertainty is perhaps to some extent tolerable where Community legislation gives rights to the individual against public authorities: an uncertain right may, after all, be better than no right at all. It is, however, intolerable where obligations are imposed on the individual. One situation in which this arises is where directives are adopted in the field of private law, a rapidly increasing area of Community legislation. These measures will form the main focus of this study, though our attention will not be confined to them. Before considering these matters, we must, however, set the stage by making some preliminary distinctions.