Illegality after Patel v Mirza
Sarah Green · Alan Bogg
juny del 2018 · Bloomsbury Publishing
Llibre electrònic
320
Pàgines
reportNo es verifiquen les puntuacions ni les ressenyes Més informació
Sobre aquest llibre
In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed.
The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance.
This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.
The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance.
This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.
Sobre l'autor
Sarah Green is Professor of Private Law at the University of Bristol.
Alan Bogg is Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol.
Alan Bogg is Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol.
Puntua aquest llibre electrònic
Dona'ns la teva opinió.
Informació de lectura
Telèfons intel·ligents i tauletes
Instal·la l'aplicació Google Play Llibres per a Android i per a iPad i iPhone. Aquesta aplicació se sincronitza automàticament amb el compte i et permet llegir llibres en línia o sense connexió a qualsevol lloc.
Ordinadors portàtils i ordinadors de taula
Pots escoltar els audiollibres que has comprat a Google Play amb el navegador web de l'ordinador.
Lectors de llibres electrònics i altres dispositius
Per llegir en dispositius de tinta electrònica, com ara lectors de llibres electrònics Kobo, hauràs de baixar un fitxer i transferir-lo al dispositiu. Segueix les instruccions detallades del Centre d'ajuda per transferir els fitxers a lectors de llibres electrònics compatibles.
