Atjaunināt sīkdatņu piekrišanu

Dissenting Judgments in the Law [Hardback]

Edited by , Foreword by , Edited by
  • Formāts: Hardback, 1 pages, height x width: 229x152 mm, weight: 760 g
  • Izdošanas datums: 29-Feb-2012
  • Izdevniecība: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing
  • ISBN-10: 0854900845
  • ISBN-13: 9780854900848
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
  • Hardback
  • Cena: 92,43 €
  • Grāmatu piegādes laiks ir 3-4 nedēļas, ja grāmata ir uz vietas izdevniecības noliktavā. Ja izdevējam nepieciešams publicēt jaunu tirāžu, grāmatas piegāde var aizkavēties.
  • Daudzums:
  • Ielikt grozā
  • Piegādes laiks - 4-6 nedēļas
  • Pievienot vēlmju sarakstam
  • Formāts: Hardback, 1 pages, height x width: 229x152 mm, weight: 760 g
  • Izdošanas datums: 29-Feb-2012
  • Izdevniecība: Wildy, Simmonds and Hill Publishing
  • ISBN-10: 0854900845
  • ISBN-13: 9780854900848
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
In Dissenting Judgments in the Law a team of expert contributors reassess nineteen landmark cases from different areas of the law, each of which had the potential for the law to have developed in a markedly different direction. The cases have been selected on account of their continued relevance to the law today or the controversial nature of the majoritys decision. A key feature of each case was a dissenting opinion from a judge who thought that the law should develop in a different direction.

The aim of the contributors is to re-evaluate important cases, such as YL v Birmingham City Council [ 2007] UKHL 27, Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [ 1962] AC 446 and R v Hinks [ 2000] UKHL 53 by assessing the merits of the judgements given, before deciding whether the law would, in fact, have been better served by following the dissenting opinion rather than that of the majority of judges in the case. The judicial reasoning in each case is explored in depth and is contrasted with differing approaches in other jurisdictions. Where relevant, a comparative analysis is employed in order to show how the law, by not following the dissenting opinion, has developed out of step with other common law jurisdictions. Each contributor then sets out what impact the dissenting judgment might have had on the law if it had decided the case and assess where the law in that particular field would be today.

"A highly stimulating book" Frome the Foreword by Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead

"A highly throught-provoking book which will reach out to the law student, the practitioner and the jurisprudent for the excellence of the controversies set out" Phillip Taylor, Richmond Green Chambers
Contributors ix
Foreword xiii
Lord Nicholls
Preface xv
Acknowledgements xix
Table of Cases
xxi
Table of Statutes and Secondary Legislation
xxxvii
Table of International Materials
xli
Part I Tort Law
1(76)
1 The Nuisance of the Proprietary Interest Lord Cooke's Dissent in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [ 1997] AC 655
3(18)
Neal Geach
2 Re-establishing the Search for Principle Lord Goff's Dissent in White v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police [ 1999] 2 AC 455
21(18)
Neal Geach
3 Loss of Chance Lord Hope's Dissent in Gregg v Scott [ 2005] UKHL 2
39(22)
Rebecca Gore
4 Do Corporations Have an Immortal Part? - The Need to Prove Damage in Corporate Libel Baroness Hale's Dissent in Jameel v Wall Street Journal Europe SPRL [ 2006] UKHL 44
61(16)
Neal Geach
Part II Company and Commercial Law
77(78)
5 Upholding Contractual Intentions Lord Denning's Dissent in Scruttons Ltd v Midland Silicones Ltd [ 1962] AC 446
79(26)
Catharine MacMillan
6 A Defence of Commercial Certainty in the Wake of Judicial Pragmatism Lord Bingham's Dissent in Golden Strait Corpn v Nippon Yusen Kubishika Kaisha (The Golden Victory) [ 2007] UKHL 12
105(20)
Christopher Monaghan
7 Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There Lord Morton's Dissent in Scottish Insurance Corporation v Wilsons & Clyde Coal Company Limited [ 1949] AC 462
125(12)
Dr. Charles Wild
Dr. Stuart Weinstein
8 Removal of Directors Lord Morris' Dissent in Bushell v Faith [ 1970] AC 1099
137(18)
Dr. Fang Ma
Part III Equity and Property Law
155(82)
9 Fiduciary Conduct - A Tailored Application Lord Upjohn's Dissent in Boardman v Phipps [ 1967] 2 AC 46
157(22)
Tara Dugdale
10 The Banker's Perspective Lord Millett's Dissent in Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [ 2002] UKHL 12, [ 2002] 2 AC 164
179(16)
Christopher Kirkbride
11 Discounting Fiscal Privilege - A More Charitable Solution to the Public Benefit Question Lord MacDermott's Dissent in Oppenheim v Tobacco Securities Trust Co Ltd [ 1951] AC 297
195(18)
Tara Dugdale
Neal Geach
12 Taking a Witch's Brew and Making a Consomme Lord Neuberger's Dissent in Stack v Dowden [ 2007] UKHL 17, [ 2007] 2 AC 432
213(24)
Christopher Kirkbride
Part IV Public Law
237(50)
13 Show me the Precedent! - Prerogative Powers and the Protection of the Fundamental Right not to be Exiled Lord Mance's Dissent in R (Bancoult) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (No 2) [ 2008] UKHL 61
239(24)
Christopher Monaghan
14 Contracting out of the Human Rights Act 1998 Lord Bingham's and Baroness Hale's Dissents in YL v Birmingham City Council and Others (Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs Intervening) [ 2007] UKHL 27
263(24)
Christopher Costigan
Part V Crime and Criminal Procedure
287(90)
15 Restricting the Meaning of `Appropriation' under the Theft Act 1968 - A Cool, Calm and Rational Approach to the Issue of `Stealing' A Perfectly Valid Gift Lord Hobhouse's Dissent in R v Hinks [ 2000] UKHL 53, [ 2001] 2 AC 241
289(28)
Christopher Monaghan
16 How Far is too Far? - The Extent to which Consent is a Defence to Non-fatal Offences Against the Person Lord Mustill's Dissent in R v Brown [ 1994] 1 AC 212
317(26)
Tasmin Malcolm
17 Protecting the Secret Deliberations of the Jury in the Interests of Efficiency - Has the Law `Lost its Moral Underpinning'? Lord Steyn's Dissent in R v Mirza; R v Connor and Rollock [ 2004] UKHL 2, [ 2004] 1 AC 1118
343(20)
Nicola Monaghan
18 Restricting Compensation for Miscarriages of Justice to the Truly Innocent Lord Judge's and Lord Brown's Dissents in R (on the application of Adams) v Secretary of State for Justice; Re MacDermott; Re McCartney [ 2011] UKSC 18
363(14)
Nicola Monaghan
Tasmin Malcolm
Part VI American Perspectives on Dissent
377
19 `Three Generations of Imbeciles are Enough' - The Eugenics Case Justice Butler's Dissent in Buck v Bell, 274 US 200 (1927)
379
Dr. Stuart Weinstein
Dr. Charles Wild
Neal Geach is a senior lecturer at the University of Hertfordshire specialising in Tort and Property law. He also has research interests in electronic and mobile commerce. Chris Monaghan is a Lecturer in Law at BPP University College. He also has extensive research interest in criminal law and legal-history.