One of the more vexed questions for tort lawyers in recent times has been whether recovery in negligence lies for the what has been described as the ‘loss of a chance’. The exact definition of ‘loss of chance’ is unclear, but it is generally accepted that it refers to the loss of an opportunity to obtain or receive a desired outcome; for example, recovery from a personal injury. Accordingly, where a patient receives negligent medical treatment in circumstances where, even if the treatment was properly carried out, that patient might not have been cured it is said that the patient has lost the chance of being cured as a result of the treatment.

The traditional common law analysis where a third party wishes to acquire an indefeasible interest in a chattel is to direct the latter to the ‘owner’, as the prerequisite for the enjoyment of most property rights depends upon our ability to acquire these from someone else. In this respect, the issue of whether a disposition constitutes the extinguishment of an interest in the chattel or whether a dealing raises priority questions is fundamental. Extinguishment issues go to rights of ownership, typically, where the property of A is misappropriated by a third party T who disposes of it to B, and the question of law is whether B prevails against A with its attendant consequence of extinguishing A's title. In contrast, a priority dispute arises where there are competing security interests in the same chattel which may be resolved either through a subordination agreement or through clear priority rules.

In the twin cases of Barclays Bank Plc v O’Brien and CIBC Mortgages Plc v Pitt the House of Lords consided for the first time an issue which has fresuently troubled the lower courts in recent years. In essence the issue can be boiled down to the following question:

Where a debt owed by A to C is guaranteed by B, in what circumstances will the fact that A induced B to make the guarantee by misrepresentation, undue influence or other conduct of which Equity disapproves, render the guarantee voidable by B against C?

(This simplified scenario, where A is the principal debtor, C the creditor, and B the guarantor, will be used in much of what follows). The contemporary significance of the question, and the difficulty which it has posed to the courts, are graphically shown by the fact that it has given rise to eleven reported decisions by the Court of Appeal in the last eight years.

The nature of employment is changing and this brings with it the need to reconsider the rules of vicarious liability as to those for whom an employer should be liable. In recent years government policy indicating the preferred nature of the employment market has brought about considerable changes in employment practices and these have been reflected in employment law. Not only has there been a drift towards self employment but also a rise in such categories as casual workers, agency workers and trainees, and at the same time there has been a rise in legalism in employment law which has produced a number of technicalities specific to that subject. Undue concentration on the contract of employment and the rise of the concept of mutuality of obligation mean that we now have a view of the nature of ‘employment’ which is skewed towards the demands of employment law and the policies embedded therein.

On 18 December 1993 The Independent reported that two brothers had been convicted of manslaughter in Saratov, in the Volga region, in the first jury trial to be held in Russia since the Revolution. Japan is poised, should it so wish, to reinstate jury trial, an institution it abandoned with little regret in 1942; Argentina is considering the introduction of juries; it is possible that in conformity with article 125 of its constitution, Spain, too, may yet bring forward proposals for a form of trial by jury. Such developments prompt the thought that, although a growing number of non-common law jurisdictions around the world are espousing jury trial (or, at least, giving serious thought to the possibility), and although several European civilian jurisdictions already operate forms of trial by jury, there is a lack of reliable information about the place the jury occupies in the public's and the legal profession's mind in non-common law jurisdictions.

This report presents the findings of the survey conducted in 1993/94, this survey being an updated version of one conducted in 1983/94. The present study has been expanded to cover Australian and Canadian (Common Law) universities, and as in previous surveys has been conducted primarily through the medium of a detailed questionnaire.

In each of the jurisdictions surveyed there exist parallel concerns about legal education and, of more direct interest here, the role of Jurisprudence and Legal Theory within the law curriculum. By drawing on data received from Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom and the literature on legal education, this article aims to provide a comparative study of the extent to which Jurisprudence features in the academic training of the next generation of lawyers, a large proportion of whom will enter a profession characterised by a shared common law tradition.

In a Notice on cooperation between national courts and the Commission published in early 1993, the European Commission made the following policy pronouncements about its future role in the enforcement of the competition rules contained in the EC Treaty:

‘As the administrative authority responsible for the Community's competition policy, the Commission must serve the Community's general interest. The administrative resources at the Commission's disposal to perform its task are necessarily limited and cannot be used to deal with all the cases brought to its attention. The Commission is therefore obliged, in general, to take all organizational measures necessary for the performance of its task and, in particular to establish priorities.’