Add to ORKGThe Supreme Court’s decision in Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60; [2017] 3 W.L.R. 1000, [2018] 1 All E.R. 1 affirms that the law of England and Wales concerning vicarious liability is long on policy, and short on principle
This article examines the operation of the defence of reasonable excuse within the English legal sys...
In the United Kingdom a broad principle has been developing which effectively allows trustees to imp...
This is a study of the English choice of law rules in torts. At first it outlines the development o...
Discusses five elements of judicial reasoning in Armes v Nottinghamshire CC (SC), which found a coun...
The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Prince Alfred College v ADC is a landmark case...
Two complimentary decisions of the Supreme Court have provided the opportunity to review the require...
This article uses Atiyah and Summer’s categorisation of the attributes of formal legal reasoning in ...
Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) is a venerable common law doctrine which holds an employer...
When, in the performance of their roles, do public authorities owe a private law duty of care to tho...
The recent litigation that ended in the House of Lords’ decision in Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sus...
The Privy Council’s decision in Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd v Glenalla Properties Ltd 1 is no adve...
Examines the test for vicarious liability for intentional torts laid down by the House of Lords in L...
The paper reveals the birth and evolution of the British precedent Rylands v. Fletcher that, once ad...
When, in the performance of their roles, do public authorities owe a private law duty of care to tho...
This paper, ‘Limits of Liability’, shall focus on the recent history of the concept of vicarious lia...
This article examines the operation of the defence of reasonable excuse within the English legal sys...
In the United Kingdom a broad principle has been developing which effectively allows trustees to imp...
This is a study of the English choice of law rules in torts. At first it outlines the development o...
Discusses five elements of judicial reasoning in Armes v Nottinghamshire CC (SC), which found a coun...
The recent decision of the High Court of Australia in Prince Alfred College v ADC is a landmark case...
Two complimentary decisions of the Supreme Court have provided the opportunity to review the require...
This article uses Atiyah and Summer’s categorisation of the attributes of formal legal reasoning in ...
Vicarious liability (respondeat superior) is a venerable common law doctrine which holds an employer...
When, in the performance of their roles, do public authorities owe a private law duty of care to tho...
The recent litigation that ended in the House of Lords’ decision in Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sus...
The Privy Council’s decision in Investec Trust (Guernsey) Ltd v Glenalla Properties Ltd 1 is no adve...
Examines the test for vicarious liability for intentional torts laid down by the House of Lords in L...
The paper reveals the birth and evolution of the British precedent Rylands v. Fletcher that, once ad...
When, in the performance of their roles, do public authorities owe a private law duty of care to tho...
This paper, ‘Limits of Liability’, shall focus on the recent history of the concept of vicarious lia...
This article examines the operation of the defence of reasonable excuse within the English legal sys...
In the United Kingdom a broad principle has been developing which effectively allows trustees to imp...
This is a study of the English choice of law rules in torts. At first it outlines the development o...