Mr. Bruton occupied a flat by virtue of a written agreement with the Quadrant Housing Trust. The agreement specifically categorised itself as a “weekly licence” although it did give exclusive possession to Bruton. For its part, the Trust held the flat as licensee from the freehold owner, Lambeth Council, in order to pursue its charitable housing aims of providing temporary and emergency accommodation. By virtue of section 32 of the Housing Act 1985, any grant of a lease by the Council to the Trust would have been ultra vires. Bruton accepted the “licence” from the Trust on this basis, but now alleged that he held the flat on a lease, giving security of tenure and triggering a repairing obligation for the Trust under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (implied repairing obligations for short term leases). The High Court had held that the agreement was a licence and this was confirmed by the Court of Appeal, with Millett L.J. noting that it was difficult to see how Bruton could have a lease when the Trust itself held no estate in the land out of which a lease could have been granted: [1998] Q.B. 834, 845. The House of Lords, unanimously, held that Bruton had a lease on a simple application of Street v. Mountford [1985] A.C. 809. The fact that the Trust held no estate in the land was neither here nor there: Bruton v. London & Quadrant Housing Trust [1999] 3 W.L.R. 150.

Under the present law, policy-based reasoning plays a major role in the judicial determination of private law disputes. The propriety of this type of reasoning, however, has been the subject of much debate. Whilst many argue that there is nothing objectionable about using policy-based reasoning, others, particularly those who believe in a rights and/or corrective justice-based view of private law, argue that policy should play no role in the determination of private law disputes, and that courts should instead rely on what they call “principle”. This article will examine both sides of the debate, initially exploring what is actually meant by “principle” and “policy”, and then providing an overview of the primary arguments relied on in favour of both a policy- and principle-based approach to resolving private law disputes. Finally, a compromise between the two approaches, the so-called “pluralist” approach, will be examined.

Rejecting the competing positions of Swadling and Chambers, this article argues that the law of presumed resulting trusts reflects a very old rule that, upon a voluntary transfer, the fate of the beneficial interest in the property depends on the intention of the transferor. The case law shows that the presumption is of an intention to create a trust for the transferor or provider of the purchase money. It makes no difference if, reflecting the historically important concept of “retention”, this is phrased in negative terms as a presumption that the intention of the transferor was not to pass the beneficial interest to the transferee.

One can conceive of more exciting presents than a part of a debt; but a creditor is sometimes moved to make such an assignment. Suppose, for example, that he is owed £100 by X and desires to transfer the right to half of it to a friend. How can he do this?

“There is no such thing known to our procedure as putting half a prisoner's character in issue and leaving out the other half.” This observation fell from Humphreys J. in delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Winfield (1939). The purpose of this article is to suggest that at common law this statement is not borne out by principle or by authority. The effect on the common law where the prisoner elects to go into the witness-box in exercise of the statutory opportunity created by the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, will also be considered. The type of situation that arises is illustrated by Winfield's Case, where the facts, in brief, were that on a charge of indecent assault, W. put in issue his good character for sexual morality, and the prosecution in cross-examination proved his previous convictions for offences involving dishonesty. The court held that such cross-examination was proper. The question is whether the evidence of the good or bad character of the prisoner must be confined to the trait or traits relevant to the type of crime charged. It will be submitted that the evidence must be so confined. On an indictment for murder, evidence of the good or bad character of the prisoner for honesty will be inadmissible. Not only the crime charged but also the circumstances in which it is alleged to have been committed must be considered. If the murder is committed with a hammer, character for peace and quiet on the one hand and for violence on the other will be admissible, but not if it is a case of slow poisoning.

The protection of human rights through common law principles and values has a greater potential than has been recognised hitherto. First, the adoption at common law of the proportionality test of interferences with rights shows that, when human rights are at issue, the courts will apply an exigent test, allowing interferences only if, amongst other things, a less intrusive measure could not have been used. Secondly, the principle of legality, along with common law constitutionalism as developed recently by the Supreme Court, now means that there is a common law pendant to the rule in s. 3(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998. Thirdly, in cases where the protection offered by the Act is displaced by obligations under the Charter of the United Nations, there is no displacement of common law rights, which continue to operate. Fourthly, common law rights are more open to the influences of the customary international law of human rights than are Convention rights. These factors combine to mean that the future of common law rights is an auspicious one.

IN Hämäläinen v Finland (Application no. 37359/09), 16 July 2014, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights held that Contracting States of the Council of Europe may require the dissolution of an existing marriage before extending the right to legal gender recognition.

The Sale of Goods Act 1979 (“the Act”) uses two terms, “property” and “title”, which one would normally associate with ownership. Of “title”, there is no definition in the Act; of “property”, there is one. But the definition, as we shall see, does not carry us very far. There has been much debate on the meaning of the two terms. The approach advocated by Battersby and Preston in a deservedly well-known article appears to have gained considerable acceptance.5 This paper hopes to present, as a theoretical possibility, an alternative interpretation of the uses and meanings of those concepts and of their relationship. It would be useful to begin with a brief description of “ownership” since “property” and “title” are associated with it.