Search

Many common law jurisdictions recognise that directors have an obligation to consider the interests of company creditors when the company is experiencing financial distress. Despite numerous cases attempting to crystalise legal principles related to this obligation and significant academic commentary on the topic, the parameters of the obligation remain uncertain. This paper provides an analytical comparison of the latest case law in Australia and the UK concerning the two most important issues that exist in relation to this obligation, namely when is the obligation triggered and what do directors have to do to ensure that they comply with the obligation. We found that the UK courts appear to be adopting a much more restrictive approach regarding the trigger for the obligation, whereas the obligation may arise much earlier in Australia, due to the liberal framing of the trigger. An analysis of case law also revealed that the weight attached to the interests of creditors once the obligation is triggered seems to be much more significant in the UK, compared to Australia. This analysis is important as there is no doubt that courts in other common law jurisdictions, and particularly in the Commonwealth, will examine the Australian and UK jurisprudence in making their decisions in relation to any claim that directors have failed to comply with the obligation to consider the interests of creditors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper summarizes key shifts in judicial decisions relating to public health powers during the pandemic and the implications of those decisions for public health practice. Then, it gives a preview and call for partnership in developing a legal framework for authority that guides public health to better activities, processes, and accountability in service of the public's health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To date, welfare protections have failed animals. In this context, many animal advocates and scholars have supported recognition of animal rights. Animal rights theory, however, remains underdeveloped. This article contributes to the development of animal rights theory and, in this respect, proposes the utilisation of sentience and intrinsic worth concepts as a pluralist foundation for prospective animal rights. Sentience and intrinsic worth as a conceptual underpinning for animal rights hold clear benefits in that (i) the concepts are already embedded in many legal systems, (ii) sentience would enable the development of animal rights to be built on the established interest theory of rights, and (iii) sentience directly links to the justification of rights as being primarily concerned with the prevention of pain and suffering. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Contract terms can be express or implied. But what does that mean? I argue that the distinction can be illuminated by reference to the philosophy of language. Express terms are best understood by reference to the truth-conditional content of the parties' agreement; implied terms are derived from express terms by a process of reasoning, albeit one aimed at establishing the parties' commitments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article looks at transgender media representations from the aspect of press regulation which is so far under-researched. Placing the analysis within the fragmented post-Leveson UK press landscape, it examines the two UK press watchdogs' provisions relating to transgender reporting. The study evaluates IPSO's and IMPRESS' editorial standards through the lens of queer legal theory, offering a fresh perspective on the key role of these bodies in establishing (trans)gender 'outsiders' and 'insiders' in the ongoing trans rights debate of which the press forms a key part. It is argued that, although both regulators have taken steps to tackle trans-discriminatory reporting, IMPRESS' approach seems to strike a more constructive balance between freedom of expression and trans people's rights than IPSO. The paper concludes by making recommendations for both press regulators to address the complexities of trans issues and tackle the discursive harm of transgender media 'othering' more effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carl Schmitt and AV Dicey are two of history's most influential constitutional theorists, and they offer two of history's most influential accounts of referendums. In most respects, their approaches to referendums are in direct opposition to each other. On Schmitt's view, the purpose of referendums is to acclaim executive actors. On Dicey's view, the role of referendums is to constrain them. Despite disagreeing about whether referendums should acclaim or constrain the executive, Schmitt and Dicey agree that an agenda-setting role for representatives in referendums is inevitable. This paper argues that, in the UK context, if Schmitt and Dicey are right about the necessary agenda-setting power of representatives in referendums, then the accounts of referendums they each offer must be two sides of the same coin. Given the dominance of the executive over the legislature in the UK and the uncodified nature of the constitution, referendums are processes that necessarily both acclaim and limit the executive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Compensating the plaintiff's expectancy loss is the established remedy for breach of contract in common-law jurisdictions. Legal theory has examined losses and gains extending beyond lost expectancy, especially gain-based disgorgement as a remedy reflecting the restitution interest in contract law. The theory of efficient breach implies that restitution remedies inaccurately compensate loss, whereas the case in jurisprudence for gain-based disgorgement ignores efficiency all together in focussing on 'wrongs' and 'just' compensation. We consider legal developments in the UK and US to show (i) efficient breach and gain-based disgorgement can be reasonably reconciled; (ii) a full disgorgement remedy will be evaded because the defendant will deliver specific performance; (iii) careful recognition of the type of externalities affecting the plaintiff, defendant and third parties indicates when disgorgement is useful. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As with any other healthcare professional in today's medicolegal climate, the Occupational Therapist is at a risk of litigious claims being made against them. Through a Freedom of Information request, litigation claims data between 2000 and 2020 against National Health Service Occupational Therapists in the United Kingdom were obtained from National Health Service (NHS) Resolution. We perform a descriptive analysis of the results and review the literature around litigation involving Occupational Therapists. 79 claims were registered over this period, of which 37 were settled with damages. The most common primary injury for successful claims was fracture. The most common primary causes for successful claims were equipment malfunction and lack of assistance/care. The total cost for successful claims was £1,655,771. These data demonstrate that Occupational Therapy is a trusted profession, with a low rate of claims. We frame these findings in context and discuss lessons behind the data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This comment describes and critiques the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. It considers in particular the Court's position on the effect of Patel v Mirza on previous illegality case law. It analyses the enduring tensions between Patel and the House of Lords' decision in Gray v Thames Trains, which the Supreme Court in Henderson upheld as enduringly authoritative notwithstanding the rearticulation of the illegality principle in Patel. It assesses the logical problems in the Supreme Court's position, and contextualises it as an attempt to mitigate Patel 's potentially disruptive effects on legal certainty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The list of recognised grounds of judicial review has remained constant in England and Wales for several decades. Modern administrative law may therefore appear to be characterised by high levels of stability or perhaps stagnancy. The essays in The Frontiers of Public Law are, however, an important reminder of three important sources of dynamism across modern administrative law. First, legislation can change regularly in this field, generating novel legal questions. Secondly, internal administrative practices are not static but evolving, creating questions about the adequacy of existing doctrinal structures. Thirdly, principles can emerge within sub-branches of judicial review, giving rise to questions about whether and how those same principles apply elsewhere. These sources of dynamism make modern administrative law ripe territory for novel and important legal issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers a few comments on the interesting paper ‘Responsibility, Prudence and Health Promotion' by Brown, Maslen and Savulescu. Topics include the development of NCDs is powerfully influenced by social and environmental forces beyond an individual's direct control, and the undue emphasis on individuals ‘taking responsibility' for making healthy choices is unethical, sometimes stigmatizing and always unscientific.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: I have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare.