Monthly Archives: January, 2024
Moshikaro, ‘Unjust Contempt as the “Gist” of Defamation Law’
ABSTRACT Recently, there has been renewed debate as to what is the proper moral object of our law of defamation. Our courts, led predominantly by the thorough treatment of the issue undertaken by Justices Froneman and Cameron in Le Roux v Dey, argue that the proper ‘gist’ of defamation law is an impairment to one’s […]
Hondagneu-Messner, ‘Data Portability: A Guide and a Roadmap’
ABSTRACT Data portability is one of the most unprecedented and innovative aspects of Europe’s GDPR and California’s CCPA. Widespread adoption of data portability is not slowing down. Privacy bills in Congress submitted by both Democrats and Republicans include data portability as a right. Several proposed state and international privacy laws also call for the right […]
Gilboa, ‘Biased but Reasonable: Bias Under the Cover of Standard of Care’
ABSTRACT Inequities in the distribution of healthcare are widely acknowledged to plague the United States healthcare system. Controversies as to whether anti-discrimination law allows individuals to bring lawsuits with respect to implicit rather than intentional bias render negligence law an important avenue for redressing harms caused by implicit bias in medical care. Yet, as this […]
‘The Applicable Standard of Care in Cases Involving Medical Negligence Abroad’
There is a paucity of reported decisions addressing the question of what the applicable standard of care is in cases involving negligent medical treatment carried out outside of the UK. There is considerable authority on the applicable standard of care in cases involving accidents occurring during package holidays to foreign destinations. It is a firmly […]
Lord Burrows, ‘Statutory Interpretation in the Courts Today’
INTRODUCTION As Professor Guido Calabresi, the famous American academic and judge, wrote in 1982, we are ‘in the age of statutes’. In a similar vein, Professor Grant Gilmore graphically described the past century and more as involving ‘an orgy of statute-making’. And in the words of my former Oxford colleague Professor Robert Stevens, ‘Judge made […]
Mercurio and Upreti, ‘From Necessity to Flexibility: A Reflection on the Negotiations for a TRIPS Waiver for Covid-19 Vaccines and Treatments’
ABSTRACT This article critically examines the proposed waiver of intellectual property (IP) rights for COVID-19 vaccines under the World Trade Organization Agreement’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), which was initiated in October 2020 when the pandemic raged and vaccines were unavailable. However, the landscape has now changed and the waiver may no longer […]
Campbell and Smith, ‘Distinguishing Between Direct and Indirect Discrimination’
ABSTRACT This article critiques two commonly discussed ways of understanding the distinction between direct and indirect discrimination. On the first, direct discrimination is intentional, whereas indirect discrimination is unintentional. On the second, direct discrimination applies where the discriminator (D) singles out the complainant (C) for differential treatment on the basis that C possesses a protected […]
Matsumura, ‘The Marital Habitus’
ABSTRACT The law on the books has recognized the right of cohabitants to create enforceable legal obligations with each other for half a century. Yet few seek to enforce such obligations, and their attempts almost never prevail. This article explores one possible explanation for the invisibility of their claims. Marriage is so deeply rooted in […]
Cockburn, Purser, Chan, Crawford, Whyte and Dulleck, ‘A Behavioral Economics Analysis of Will Making Preferences: When to Begin and Who Should Have the Most Input?’
ABSTRACT The global COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need to plan for death, including the transmission of property through a valid will. Surprisingly little is known, however, about when people tend to make wills, how they go about doing so, and whether those practices vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To begin building a foundation of […]
See, ‘Restitution of Non-Gratuitously Conferred Benefit in Malaysia: A Case for Sowing the Unjust Enrichment Seed’
ABSTRACT This article draws on the common law of unjust enrichment to rationalize and develop the right to recover a non-gratuitously conferred benefit set out in section 71 of Malaysia’s Contracts Act 1950. This attempt at legal transplant and modern restatement is made in the hope of injecting principle and clarity into the antique section […]