The purpose of this paper is to consider how leading scholars are interpreting the role and status of the core tenets of legal scholarship in England and Australia – the tenets that have provided an element of unity in legal scholarship over the past century or so. Instead of focusing on the way that scholarship has diversified and expanded, the paper considers whether elements of the prior orthodoxy have remained: do the tenets persist, what status are they afforded and what impact will their presence have on the future identity of the discipline and its conception of law? The paper captures insights into the way that scholars – as opposed to administrators or managers – are interpreting changes in the discipline. It is based on the premise that scholarly attitudes can shape the discipline and that therefore such attitudes are worthy of study.

The relationship between criminal law and regulatory techniques in responses to corporate crime is complex and changing. The Serious Fraud Office's increased proactivity in relation to economic crime is precariously balanced on the fulcrum of criminal and regulatory rhetoric. In this paper I note significant developments and suggest that the similarities and differences between regulatory and criminal law approaches to corporate accountability are ripe for re-examination.

This paper examines the new statutory regime for paying damages for personal injury by means of periodical payments instead of a lump sum. How are such payments to increase in future to take account of rising care costs, especially when these usually form the largest part of a major award? The answer to this question is crucial in determining the extent that the new form of payment will be used. How periodical payments are to be indexed is also a key factor in calculating the total cost of compensation and, in particular, in assessing the liabilities of the National Health Service. The issue gave rise to litigation which was voted by personal injury practitioners as the most important of the year. Here, that litigation and the statutory reforms which gave rise to it are set in their wider academic contexts.

The use of proprietary estoppel to make or support claims to property is now common. Case-law tells us that the concept of unconscionability is central to a successful claim, but little guidance is provided as to what ‘unconscionability’ means or how it is to be established. It is often assumed rather than explained. This paper argues that unconscionability in fact has a reasonably clear meaning within the law of proprietary estoppel and that it can be used to define and confine proprietary estoppel within reasonably clear boundaries. It seeks to explain that proprietary estoppel is at heart an antidote to a lack of required formality in the creation or transfer of property rights and, consequently, that the proper meaning of unconscionability is linked to these formality requirements. Unconscionability is therefore not a cover for unregulated judicial discretion, nor a loose term to describe a general sense of unfairness, but a concept which can be used to discriminate objectively between valid and invalid estoppel claims.

For some years now, there has been a growing orthodoxy in EU legal studies which maintains that the EU project is less about achieving uniformity of laws across the Member States, and more about managing flexibility and differentiation. However, for the most part, space for differentiation is recognised only as between states or groups of states. The present paper moves beyond this level to explore the scope for local differentiation, at a sub-state level. This inquiry has been motivated by the recent Horvath judgment, in which the European Court of Justice was asked whether differential implementation by the devolved administrations of the UK of certain EU law obligations was lawful. The paper places these developments alongside other judicial, legal and political developments, to demonstrate a growing recognition of the role of regions within the EU's multi-levelled system of governance, revealing that the EU order is, in some respects, finally catching up with the realities of the rise of devolution and decentralisation taking place across Europe. However, it is submitted that there is further the EU could and should go in recognising, if not a ‘Europe of the Regions’, then a ‘Europe with the Regions’.

The Statement of Standards for University Law Library Provision is a comprehensive and flexible set of standards providing authoritative guidance for law schools and law librarians. It represents a broad and authoritative consensus of views. The Standards were originally drawn up by a consultative group established by the Libraries Sub-Committee of the Society of Legal Scholars in 1995 and approved by the Society after consultation with academic, professional and governmental bodies. They have now been comprehensively revised by a working party of the Libraries Sub-Committee, after extensive consultation, and this revision was adopted by the Council of the Society on 9 September 2009. The Standards themselves are expressed briefly and are designed to be of general application to libraries serving an increasingly diverse range of law schools and law school activities. They are applicable to the academic stage of legal education only (undergraduate and postgraduate), delivered through all modes of study, and are supported by a more detailed commentary.