The idea of ‘collective memory’ features prominently in several disciplines but rarely in legal scholarship. Drawing on the work of Henri Bergson, Maurice Halbwachs and GWF Hegel, this paper seeks to present an account of collective memory that is relevant to discourse on law and policy. The paper uses the example of the policy response to the European sovereign debt crisis as a means of illustrating how collective memory of events in the distant past can shape individual behaviour and thinking. It argues that the current policy response can be explained, at least in part, by the influence on policy makers of the standard historical narrative of the Great Inflation of Weimar Germany. When, however, collective memory takes the form of Bergsonian ‘habit memory’, it can inhibit our efforts to resolve hard cases and the German government's opposition to the European Central Bank acting as a lender of last resort in the government bond markets neatly illustrates this point. If the debt crisis is to be managed effectively, policy makers must draw on Bergsonian ‘pure memory’ to explore the bounds of political and economic possibility.

This paper examines the nature of welfare and best interests as used in medical and family law. It argues that these are commonly presented in individualistic terms, requiring the court to promote the interests of a child or incompetent adult without reference to the interests of others. However, this paper argues that, properly understood, best interests and welfare should be taken as concepts which recognise the importance of relational interests, the performance of obligations, and the virtue of altruism.

The paper examines the controversial issue of referral fees for personal injury claims. It looks at the function of referral fees in the civil justice system, their relationship to the guarantees of access to court and the right to seek legal assistance in ECHR Art 6, and the debate about promoting access to justice or a litigious society. It examines the experience of the referral fees market in England and Wales, where the costs of referrals have risen dramatically and there is concern that referrers are auctioning their customers to the highest bidder rather than helping them find competent lawyers. Sir Rupert Jackson recommended banning referral fees in his report on the costs of civil litigation, and the Government has announced it will implement this recommendation. The paper considers the potential effects of a ban on competition in the legal services market and its compatibility with UK and EU competition law. The paper argues that a combination of better regulation of the industry and proper regulation of costs rules is a better and more proportionate way of controlling legal costs and the quality of legal services than an outright ban. While referral fees have not delivered all the benefits one would expect from a for-profit independent referrals service, they can help people obtain information about their legal rights, and competent lawyers to enforce them. This service is particularly valuable given that the state has substantially cut public funding of the civil justice system in recent years.

Three connected processes make up the UK corporate rescue regime: the formal, legal regime, informal approaches and the quasi-formal system, as exemplified by the pre-packaged administration. These three processes not only operate through different procedures but they are also attuned to the pursuit of different objectives and values, they are subject to different controls and they involve different roles for, and relationships between, the parties affected by corporate rescues. A number of negative and identifiable consequences flow from such divergences. An understanding of the tensions between these three systems and an awareness of the challenges posed by transition through different procedures does, however, help to explain many of the deficiencies of current corporate rescue processes and it also provides an enhanced basis for considering current proposals for reforming restructuring and working towards an improved rescue regime.

While there is a central assumption that charities can be key implementers of Big Society ideals, this paper will consider whether there is compatibility between the political rhetoric of the Big Society and its delivery through the charitable sector. It will be maintained that, while much obvious synergy exists, there are inherent difficulties, at both the practical and theoretical level, for the large-scale involvement of charities and their volunteers in the delivery of the Big Society. At the practical level, it will be seen that some amendments to the legal framework, so as to accommodate the greater use of charities and volunteers within the Big Society, may need to be brought into effect. However, at the foundational level, an examination of the core characteristics of charities and their substantive legal principles reveals some more fundamental impediments to their fulfilling Big Society objectives laid out for them by government.