TAX lawyers and family lawyers are being provided with much interest by the recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Jones v. Garnett. The Revenue have obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords. When that appeal is heard it is to be hoped that the Lordships will not be swayed by one particular point made both in the Court of Appeal (by Chancellor Morritt and Carnwath L.J.), where the taxpayer succeeded, and in the High Court (Park J.), where the Revenue had succeeded.

DURING the 19th century American law (as, indeed, English law) was open to foreign influences. Foreign creativity was welcomed, not seen as an attempt to interfere with American values and life by telling them how to ordain their affairs. English statutes, mainly on matters of private law, would thus reach the westward expanding United States with a jet lag of anything between 10 and 20 years. Decisions of the highest English courts would also be followed, within about the same period of time, unless local conditions made their adoption undesirable. Occasionally and increasingly local courts also developed the courage to challenge the wisdom of the progenitor system, displaying not only growing intellectual confidence in their own, but also showing the flexibility that is found in societies which have the mixed blessing of a shorter tradition; but when they did so, they invariably felt the need to explain why they chose to go down another path. The reasons given for distinguishing or rejecting the parent model were often informative about both systems. American courts were thus among the first which would allude openly to the policy reasons which dictated their results.

THE relativity of titles to land is a fundamental feature of property holding in the common law system. It is treated as one of the features that distinguishes it from civilian systems of property holding and proves the pragmatic stuff from which the common law is made.

INTito v. Waddell (No. 2), Megarry V.-C. famously described, and differentiated, the two dealing rules, the “self-dealing rule” and the “fair-dealing rule”, that apply to those occupying fiduciary positions: The self-dealing rule is … that if a trustee sells the trust property to himself, the sale is voidable by any beneficiary ex debito justitiae, however fair the transaction. The fair-dealing rule is … that if a trustee purchases the beneficial interest of any of his beneficiaries, the transaction is not voidable ex debito justitiae, but can be set aside by the beneficiary unless the trustee can show that he has taken no advantage of his position and has made full disclosure to the beneficiary, and that the transaction is fair and honest.

TOWARDS the end of his judgment in R. v. Collins and Ashworth Hospital Authority ex p. Brady,Kay J. (as he then was) delivered the following homily: it would seem to me a matter of deep regret if the law has developed to a point in this area where the rights of a patient count for everything and other ethical values and institutional integrity count for nothing.

JURISTIC writing and Imperial Constitutions on the subject of locatio conductio, collected by the compilers to produce D.19.2 and C.4.65, do not present a complete picture of the Roman law of lease. Not only were most of these texts severed from their original context, but the statements in the Introductory Constitutions to different parts of the Corpus Iuris Civilis also indicate that a large number were eliminated in the compilation process. Although it can hardly be disputed that what the compilers chose to include in these two titles was an accurate account of the law of letting and hiring in force during the time of Justinian, it has been credibly suggested that these titles were given a specific focus in order to project a particular image of the Roman rental economy.

THE right not to be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is guaranteed in absolute terms in Article 3 of the ECHR. This article imposes on a State both a negative and a positive obligation. In recent months, the House of Lords has considered cases raising both obligations pursuant to Article 3. This paper will examine first the nature of Article 3 and these obligations, second the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of State responsibility, and finally the recent decisions of the House of Lords in R. (on the application of Adam, Limbuela and Tesema) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department