Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:37:00.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Division of Wrongs: A Historical Comparative Study, by Eric Descheemaeker. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, xxv + 289 + (index) 10pp (£50 hardback). ISBN 978-0-19-954472-1.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

James Lee
James Lee*
Affiliation:
University of Birmingham
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Book Review
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , June 2010 , pp. 324 - 329
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. [2009] UKHL 33, [2009] 3 WLR 167.

2. Ibid, at [77].

3. ‘Review of The Law of Rescission by Dominic O'Sullivan, Steven Elliott and Rafal Zakrzewski’ (2009) 125 LQR 175 at 176.

4. Division of Wrongs, p ix.

5. Ibid, p 1.

6. Ibid, p 2 (original emphasis).

7. Ibid, p 1.

8. Ibid, p 2.

9. Ibid, pp 108 and 138.

10. Ibid, p 99.

11. G.3.88.

12. J.3.13.2.

13. Division of Wrongs, p 95.

14. Ulpianus 18 ad edictum.

15. Division of Wrongs, p 93.

16. Ibid, p 111, and generally pp 43–45.

17. P Birks ‘English and Roman learning in Moses v Macferlan’ JAC Thomas Memorial Lecture [1984] CLP 1 at 13; and Birks, P and McLeod, G ‘The implied contract theory of quasi-contract: civilian opinion current in the century before Blackstone’ (1986) 6 OJLS 46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

18. Luke, 10:25: the Greek word is ‘νοµικος’, which translates as ‘jurist’, or ‘one learned in law’.

19. Luke, 10:26.

20. [1932] AC 562 at 580.

21. Stevens, R Torts and Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

22. Ibid, p 291.

23. Division of Wrongs, p 231.

24. Ibid, p 232.

25. See especially, Stevens, above n 21, pp 291–300.

26. Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2007, reviewed at (2008) 28 LS 140.

27. Division of Wrongs, pp 244–247.

28. Ibid, pp 230–231.

29. [2003] UKHL 52, [2004] 1 AC 309.

30. [2004] UKHL 41, [2005] 1 AC 134.

31. Rees, at [46] (Lord Steyn) and at [73] (Lord Hope). See Lord Hope generally at [70]–[77].

32. Chester, at [9]; similarly, Lord Hoffmann at [32]: ‘On ordinary principles of tort law, the defendant is not liable’.

33. Division of Wrongs, p 277.

34. For example, Descheemaeker, E Protecting reputation’ (2009) 29 OJLS 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

35. There is a French authority cited from 2006: Cass Ass plén, 6 October 2006, Myr'Ho, on p 179.

36. Douglas v. Hello! Ltd[2007] UKHL 21, [2008] 1 AC 1.

37. Total Network v HMRC[2008] UKHL 19, [2008] 1 AC 1174.

38. Above n 36 (one of the conjoined appeals).

39. Division of Wrongs, pp 32 and 35–38.

40. Above n 37.

41. Ibid, at [121]. A similar question is considered by Descheemaeker in the French context: ‘Are civil-turned-criminal delicts also wrongs?’: Division of Wrongs, p 132.

42. R (Greenfield) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2005] UKHL 14, [2005] 2 All ER 240 at [19], per Lord Bingham.

43. Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle; Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police (conjoined appeals) [2008] UKHL 50, [2009] 1 AC 225; and (decided probably after the book was submitted for publication) Trent Strategic Health Authority v Jain[2009] UKHL 4, [2009] 1 All ER 957. See also Steele, J (Dis)owning the Convention in the law of tort’ in Lee, J (ed) From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging (Oxford: Hart Publishing, forthcoming 2010).Google Scholar

44. Division of Wrongs, pp 204–211.

45. Ibid, p 198.

46. [2001] QB 967 at 999.

47. [2004] UKHL 22, [2004] 2 AC 457 at [14] and [15].

48. [2006] EWCA Civ 1492, [2007] Bus LR 220.

49. Ibid, at [2], [20] and [37].

50. Carty, H An Analysis of the Economic Torts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) p 282.Google Scholar

51. [2005] EWCA Civ 595, [2006] QB 125 at [96]–[97].

52. Division of Wrongs, p 250.

53. Ibid, p 251.

54. [2008] UKHL 25, [2008] 1 AC 962.

55. There was another issue, about the appropriate test for a mistaken belief in the civil, as opposed to criminal law, but this is not directly relevant here.

56. Lords Bingham, Scott and Rodger were in the majority, while Lords Carswell and Neuberger dissented.

57. [2008] UKHL 25 at [56]. The reference is to Burrows, A (ed) English Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2008) para 17.246.Google Scholar

58. Ashley, at [22].

59. Ibid at [81].

60. For an assessment of the implications of Ashley for the rest of the law of tort, see Steele, J Damages in tort and under the Human Rights Act: remedial or functional separation?’ (2008) 67 CLJ 606 at 619–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

61. Dagan, H Legal realism and the taxonomy of private law’ in Rickett, C and Grantham, R (eds) Structure and Justification in Private Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008) p 147.Google Scholar