Illegality after Patel v Mirza
Sarah Green · Alan Bogg
jun. 2018 · Bloomsbury Publishing
E-knjiga
320
Strani
reportOcene in mnenja niso preverjeni. Več o tem
O tej e-knjigi
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.
O avtorju
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.
Ocenite to e-knjigo
Povejte nam svoje mnenje.
Informacije o branju
Pametni telefoni in tablični računalniki
Namestite aplikacijo Knjige Google Play za Android in iPad/iPhone. Samodejno se sinhronizira z računom in kjer koli omogoča branje s povezavo ali brez nje.
Prenosni in namizni računalniki
Poslušate lahko zvočne knjige, ki ste jih kupili v Googlu Play v brskalniku računalnika.
Bralniki e-knjig in druge naprave
Če želite brati v napravah, ki imajo zaslone z e-črnilom, kot so e-bralniki Kobo, morate prenesti datoteko in jo kopirati v napravo. Podrobna navodila za prenos datotek v podprte bralnike e-knjig najdete v centru za pomoč.
