Drawing upon the history of the doctrine of the old use, Professor John Mee has suggested both that the extent of the authority for a “retention” approach to “automatic” resulting trusts has been overlooked, and that while as a matter of history a “retention” approach has significant support, as a matter of principle in the modern law it is not fully satisfactory, so that it is necessary to look elsewhere for a theoretical explanation for the “automatic” resulting trust. This article examines the reasons for the inconsistency identified by Professor Mee, seeking to elucidate the relationship between uses and trusts, to contribute to the history of resulting uses and trusts, and to explain why the modern “automatic” resulting trust has become a rule in search of a rationale.

Under English law a child born disabled, for instance by Tay Sachs disease, as a result of negligent embryo selection by preimplantation genetic diagnosis (‘PGD’), can sue the relevant health professionals by means of a 1990 amendment to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) (‘CD’) Act 1976. By contrast, a second child conceived outside the in vitro fertilisation (‘IVF’) clinic, whose Tay Sachs is not detected in utero by means of prenatal diagnosis, can have no claim against the relevant health professionals due to the decision in McKay and Another v Essex Area Health Authority, which held that a child can have no claim for so-called “wrongful life”. This paper argues that this difference is anomalous and inequitable. It highlights the inadvertent way in which the legislative exception was crafted and shows that there are no relevant differences between the selection practices of PGD and PND that would in any event justify such different treatment. It critiques the English common law position on wrongful life by analysing the ethical and legal foundations of such a claim, arguing that the action should be permitted on the basis of a certain degree of severity, namely where a future child is likely to think that his or her life is not worth living. The analysis makes particular reference to developments since McKay in the law relating to the selective non-treatment of neonates, selective abortion, wrongful birth, and the action for wrongful life itself, as well as to the legal position of pregnant women in relation to the fetus, and the critique by people with disabilities of the practices of PGD and PND. The paper argues that McKay and those parts of the CD Act that purport to deny a claim for wrongful life to children born outside the IVF context should be revisited when the opportunity arises. The duty that health professionals already owe prospective parents to advise of a condition in a developing fetus that would give rise to serious impairments in the future child (which sounds in an action for so-called “wrongful birth”) should be owed at the same time to the future child, realised by advice to the pregnant woman, where a child is likely to be born with a condition that is so severe that any goods in life are outweighed by the burdens.

When the Land Registration Act 2002 first came into force, the prevailing academic view was that it had created a system of “title by registration”, such that, where someone (B) is mistakenly registered as owner of another person's (A's) land, he acquires a good title (notwithstanding the mistake) that can validly be conveyed to someone else (C). The thesis of this article is that, whilst the logic of the “title by registration” principle might be conceptually attractive, it has proven to be unworkable in practice, is questionable as a matter of policy, and – looking to the future – ought to be abandoned in favour of a more subtle legislative scheme for resolving A-B-C disputes.

This article explores the variation of the standard of care in negligence to favour defendants, an issue of considerable practical significance which has not previously been the subject of systematic analysis. By shining a spotlight on this issue I hope to show that varying the standard of care in this way is a useful technique, which is and could be used in a number of types of case to achieve an appropriate balance between liability and non-liability. I also hope to show that if this technique is employed there are some ways of varying the standard of care which are preferable to others. The structure of the analysis is centred around three core questions. First, to what extent has English negligence law already varied the standard of care to favour defendants? Secondly, if the standard of care is to be varied, how should this be done? And thirdly, when and why might the use of a modified standard of care be desirable?

In English law, mens rea terms can be defined differently depending on the context. This article attacks this approach, arguing that it pays insufficient attention to the criminal law's twin needs to communicate effective guidance to citizens who wish to avoid punishment, and to control the discretion accorded to the criminal law's institutions. It would be preferable to have clear definitions of mens rea terms applied uniformly across the criminal law. If there are gaps, these ought to be filled by additional mens rea terms. The practical issues raised by this argument are considered briefly.

The way in which the courts in the United Kingdom have interpreted and applied the Ullah principle has created problems in the national application of the European Convention on Human Rights. As is evident particularly in Ambrose, this is partly because Lord Bingham's approach in Ullah has been misunderstood. The article analyses these issues in relation to the notion of binding precedent, finding that judicial authority belongs to principles. The national courts ought not, though that is what the Ullah–Ambrose approach enjoins, to expend their energies seeking to align the case before them with the least dissimilar of the reported cases. Rather they should stand back from the case law of the European Court, and apply the broad principles upon which the jurisprudence is founded.

This article addresses and challenges recent comments to the effect that the common law rules about unmarried couples' property rights are uncertain, and (or but) that these rules yield an unfair result in a common scenario. It goes on to consider the Law Commission's proposed scheme aimed at reform of this area, raising the concern that this would violate Article 1 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Autonomous self-determination by competent adults is a cornerstone of medical law. We argue that the application of Kantian autonomy as the paramount model for self-determination at end of life is questionable as it fails to capture subtler nuances of decision-making in this context. We propose an alternative model which we term ‘holistic determination for oneself’ and posit this as a potential contender to the traditional Kantian construct. The paradigm of holistic determination is conceptualised on the basis of sub-determinations which coalesce to form the final determination. This paradigm offers a unique perspective that is multi-axial (based on the levels of decision-making) and multi-dimensional (based on an on-going temporal inter-relational and integrative synthesis of decisions at all levels). Holistic determination for oneself offers a paradigm that is tempered, universal and optimal for self-determination at end of life.

This paper considers whether unlawful means conspiracy might have a role to play in extending liability from insolvent companies to those who stand behind them. A reason for thinking that the tort might have such a role is that, where an agreement to injure exists, liability can be found not only in those who commit unlawful acts but in any other persons who take steps to further the conspiracy. The paper argues, furthermore, that courts should accept that unlawful means conspiracy might be committed between even the smallest company and its controlling shareholder. This would strengthen the propositions that the company is a separate legal person with its own rights and responsibilities and that it is competent to deal with all comers, including its controller.

This article proposes a new framework for determining the availability of proprietary remedies for breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty. It examines the alternative and conflicting arguments put forward in the leading cases, and suggests that they fail to justify their conclusions, either under- or over-estimating the incidence of proprietary relief for fiduciary disloyalty. These shortcomings appear to be the result of inappropriate reliance on familiar equitable formulae, in particular the routine equitable duty to account, the seemingly inescapable maxim that “equity treats as done that which ought to be done”, and the potent rules of tracing.

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.

This paper explores the circumstances in which a change in the land register should be stigmatised as a mistake and thereby introduce the discretionary power to correct it. Recognising the importance of clarifying the concept of mistake, due to its role in controlling the reliability of the register, the paper reviews and rejects various possible determinants for mistake. It proposes an account of mistake which rests on a set of rigid legal constructs about entitlement and registration and which pays respect to various traditional attributes of property.

This article examines and responds to a doctrinal claim, made by an increasing number of commentators, that English administrative law is in the midst of a “reformation” or “reinvention”, with the notion of “rights” at the heart of this radical recalibration. The article is critical of such claims on several grounds. First, these claims are steeped in ambiguity, such that the nature and doctrinal scope of the claimed metamorphosis are not clear. Second, these commentators have not undertaken the sort of detailed doctrinal analysis which is required to make credible claims about the development of the law, meaning their broad claims have a strong propensity to mislead, and pass over the nuances and complexities of doctrine. An analysis of significant features of doctrine tends to tell against a wholesale recalibration of administrative law around rights, and indicates an increasingly pluralistic rather than unitary legal order. Third, despite the centrality of the idea of “rights” to their claims, these commentators do not squarely address what they mean by “rights”, in general using the term indiscriminately, and thereby plunging their claims into uncertainty. The article demonstrates the importance of conceptual clarity in analysing “rights”-based developments through a doctrinal analysis of “rights” in administrative law, conducted through the prism of W.N. Hohfeld's analytical scheme.