Read more
Zusatztext The book is … relevant to many specialist as well as generalist audiences, and deserves to find them all. Informationen zum Autor Sarah Green is the Law Commissioner for Commercial and Common Law at the Law Commission of England and Wales. Prior to that, she was Professor of Private Law at the University of Bristol, UK, Professor of the Law of Obligations at the University of Oxford, UK, and a lecturer at the University of Birmingham, UK. Alan Bogg is Professor of Labour Law at the University of Bristol and a Barrister at Old Square Chambers. He was previously a Fellow of Hertford College, Oxford, and Professor of Labour Law in the University of Oxford. He retains an Emeritus Fellowship at Hertford College. He is the author of The Democratic Aspects of Trade Union Recognition (Hart, 2009), which was awarded the Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship in 2010. He is a co-author of the multi-author volume The Contract of Employment (OUP, 2016); and the co-author of Human Rights at Work: Reimagining Employment Law (Hart, 2024) (with Hugh Collins, ACL Davies, and Virginia Mantouvalou). Alan was awarded a Philip Leverhulme Prize in Law in 2014. Photo courtesy of Faculty of Law, University of Oxford. Klappentext 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. Vorwort High-level analysis of the impact of the landmark illegality case Patel v Mirza and its implications across private law including unjust enrichment, tort, contract, trusts and land and employment. Other chapters address the normative and conceptual implications of the case, and others address its comparative significance. Zusammenfassung 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; ...
