This article compares two models of discharge for repudiation. The first – termed the “mirror image model” – has come to the fore only in recent years. It treats the applicable principles as the mirror image of those that govern discharge for failure to perform a contractual term. Under the second model – the “differentiated model” – repudiation is analysed in terms of various criteria that respond to conceptual diversity within the basis for discharge. The two models diverge, at the heart of the repudiation doctrine, when the issue is whether a reasonable person would regard the promisor as having refused to perform the contract. It is argued that the differentiated model is the better model, and also the preferred view of the common law.

MORTGAGE Express v Lambert [2016] EWCA Civ 555 concerned a sale and leaseback. In desperate circumstances, the naïve and vulnerable A (Ms Lambert) entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of her flat. She was paid a small proportion of the value of the flat, which was then registered in the joint names of B (the buyers). B mortgaged it without disclosing to C (the mortgagee) the leaseback arrangement to A. The mortgage was registered, but no lease was. Ultimately, B defaulted on the mortgage and C sought to sell the property. The litigation concerned whether A had a right that could bind C. The Court of Appeal held that A did not and allowed the sale to proceed.

Among rules of law Karl Llewellyn noted at one extreme the “rule-of-thumb, in which the flat result is articulated, leaving behind and unexpressed all indication of its reason”. At the other extreme was “the way of principle, in which the reason is clearly and effectively articulated, and that articulation is made part of the very rule”. The vice of principle, he observed, “can be a vaporish vagueness, and the techniques of its effective formulation are not easy to isolate for communication and use”. Partly for this reason, partly perhaps because of its origin in a last-minute political compromise, section 78(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 at first confounded attempts to predict the manner of its application. One commentary suggested that it was “of no practical use”; there were dicta in the Court of Appeal to the effect that it did “no more than to re-state the power which judges had at common law before the Act of 1984 was passed”. A leading work on the law of evidence expressed the view that the sub-section was “cast in terms of such vagueness and generality as to furnish little guidance to the court”. There has been some development since those early days. It now seems clear that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 is to be regarded as a codifying Act which has to be looked at on its own wording. Section 78(1), therefore, does not merely re-state the position at common law. It is also clear that in its operation it overlaps section 76 and, through section 82(3), some of the common law. Section 78(1) may be applied in a variety of situations, with or without the presence of some element of impropriety in the way in which the evidence was obtained. Basic questions about its operation nevertheless remain.

Vicarious liability was, and it remains, curiously unsatisfactory. After a period of stability from the Middle Ages into the early modern period in the late seventeenth into the early eighteenth century, the existing law of vicarious liability began to be challenged. The mid-nineteenth century saw another reappraisal coinciding with the rise of notions of fault. The period that follows, from the late nineteenth century until after the Second World War period has not attracted much comment. One key debate in this period and earlier which provides a useful lens to examine the doctrine was whether vicarious liability should be properly characterised as a master's or servant's tort theory. The history of the doctrine during this period goes some way to explaining why the modern law remains incoherent.

Most writing on the early history of the Inns of Court reflects an assumption which was very clearly stated by Sir Frederick Pollock,

On the whole then the constitution of the Inns of Court was settled about the middle of the fourteenth century on the lines which in all cssentials are much the same at this day. The only considerable formal change was that two centuries later the original governing committee of the Bench gave way to a single principal officer, the Treasurer.

Equality before the law is a foundational principle of the common law and is of particular importance for administrative law, given the connection between judicial review and the rule of law. Analysis as to the precise requirements of this principle can help us better to understand the role that obligations to act consistently play within judicial review. This article will examine whether consistency ought to be classed as a separate ground of review and argue that this is unnecessary. Examination of the role that legal equality plays within common law reason generally will shed light on the role that it plays within administrative law in particular. Consistency is best conceived as a background principle, informed by the value of legal equality, housed within reasonableness review and not as a separate ground of review that could elide the distinction between review and appeal.

This article considers the interpretive significance of legislative inaction. Section I considers the nature of arguments based on legislative inaction. Section II explores the practical, conceptual and constitutional problems with trying to rely on legislative inaction as an interpretive aid. Section III concludes that attempts to draw inferences from legislative inaction alone are deeply flawed, but that inferences might legitimately be drawn from inaction if it forms part of the context against which the legislation is enacted. Even then, however, there are practical difficulties in determining what inferences to draw.

Where two parties are liable in respect of the same obligation and one party discharges the obligation, he may be able to recover some or all of his outlay from the other. This article addresses the rationale underlying the relief granted in such circumstances. While restitution theorists tend to emphasise the claimant’s lack of choice, it is argued that this focus is misleading. Moreover, using unjust enrichment to explain relief is unnecessary and inaccurate. An alternative explanation is put forward, which derives support from the case law on contribution—that relief aims to ensure equitable distribution of the burden of liability.