A Purchaser of land who fails to complete his contract for some reason stands to lose his equitable estate in the land and may also forfeit any deposit or other prepayments that have been made. The purpose of this article is to investigate the circumstances in which such a purchaser may obtain equitable relief against forfeiture, and to argue that the jurisdiction to give relief is broader than has been thought in recent years. The matter has been the subject of two recent decisions of such importance that an appraisal of the law seems apposite. To define the field of inquiry, it is helpful to consider two preliminary matters

Can claimants choose between contract and tort claims arising on the same facts with different jurisdictional and/or choice-of-law consequences? While domestic legal systems generally recognise concurrent liability, commentators object that its extension to private international law would be unprincipled and would threaten the field's values. This, however, contrasts with the position in common law and under EU Regulations, where concurrent claims are generally recognised with only narrow limits. This article justifies concurrent claims in private international law, arguing that the same premises supporting concurrent liability in domestic law exist in private international law, and that no field-unique concerns foreclose it.

This article considers how problems in legal historiography can lead to real legal problems, through a case-study of two recent judgments which appear to revolutionise the law on overreaching under section 2(1)(ii) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Their reasoning ignored plain wording in the Act, in a way foreshadowed by problems in the historiography of the 1925 property legislation; and the legislative history shows that the version of overreaching they promote, one with a clear political meaning, was rejected by Parliament. One of these decisions has now been reversed on appeal, but on reasoning so untenable as to invite further challenge; and now two Court of Appeal judgments on overreaching contradict, without even mentioning, two prior Court of Appeal decisions and a decision of the House of Lords. The court should reaffirm the law on overreaching, and academics should develop a new historiography.

The case now known as Ilott v The Blue Cross [2017] UKSC 17 was the first time that the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 was considered at the highest judicial level. The Court of Appeal ([2015] EWCA Civ 797, noted in [2016] C.L.J. 31) had significantly enhanced the award given to an estranged and “disinherited” but needy daughter (Heather Ilott) at the expense of the charities (the Blue Cross, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) who were the principal beneficiaries under the will of her mother, Melita Jackson, leaving her with £143,000 out of the £486,000 estate primarily to purchase the council house in which she and her family were living. The Supreme Court unanimously allowed the charities’ appeal, restoring Judge Million's original £50,000 order. Giving the lead judgment, Lord Hughes reasserted the centrality of testamentary freedom in English law, emphasised the importance of the Act's limitation to “reasonable financial provision” for maintenance for non-spouse/civil partner applicants (s. 1(2)(b)), and held that a need for maintenance was a necessary but not sufficient condition for a successful claim. He approved previous case law in holding that maintenance could not “extend to any or everything which it would be desirable for the claimant to have” (at [14]), but was not limited to “subsistence” either (at [15]). He also confirmed that the focus of the correct test under the 1975 Act is not on the behaviour of the testatrix, but opined the reasonableness of her decision may still be a significant consideration, as may the extent of any “moral claim” even if that is not a “sine qua non” (at [20]).

I want to start from the basic position in which I was brought up (I expect you were all brought up in it too) that the terms of a contract consist of conditions and warranties, the distinction between them being that the condition is something that is essential to the contract, while the other terms that are collateral or ancillary are merely warranties. If a condition is broken the aggrieved party is discharged from his obligations and can rescind the contract. If it is a warranty that is broken, the breach sounds only in damages.

The Hongkong case—a new approach to breach

The traditional thinking on this point has recently been rather mystified by references to something which is called the fundamental term and which has not yet, so far as I know, been judicially defined. Then there have been some suggestions that what matters is not the fundamental term but the fundamental breach. And finally there is the very important judgment of Diplock L.J. in the Hongkong case in which he opens up new vistas, suggesting that the traditional classification of terms into conditions and warranties has been outmoded and ought to be scrapped in favour of a new approach altogether based on the event.

It must be accepted that whatever sort of approach is made to this topic, whether a new or a traditional one, there must be some way of defining the situation in which the aggrieved party is entitled to rescind. He cannot be allowed to do so for every breach of every term.

FOLLOWING a referendum on 23 June 2016 in which 52% of voters (38% of the total electorate) had expressed a preference for the UK to leave the EU, the Government announced that it would start the process of withdrawal, in accordance with Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (“TEU”), by notifying the European Council of the UK's decision, exercising the Government's prerogative power to conduct foreign relations. A number of legal challenges were fast-tracked to the Supreme Court. In R. (Miller) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Birnie and others intervening) [2017] UKSC 5; [2017] 2 W.L.R. 583 after an expedited hearing, the Court decided two issues: (1) whether the Government could exercise its power under the royal prerogative to give notice, or needed an Act of Parliament to authorise the giving of notice; and (2) whether the Government required the consent of devolved legislatures in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales before giving notice or introducing to Parliament a Bill authorising the giving of notice. The Court sat unprecedentedly with all 11 serving members. On issue (1), the Court, by an 8–3 majority, held that an Act of Parliament would be required in order to authorise the giving of notice. On issue (2), the Court unanimously held that there was no legal requirement for consent by the devolved institutions.

This article considers various legal aspects arising from the problem of “nuisance neighbours” and in particular the recent cases of Hussain v. Lancaster C.C. and Lippiatt v. South Gloucs. C. The central argument is that the restrictive approach to the liability of landlords for nuisances of their tenants (Smith v. Scott) is incompatible with Sedleigh-Denfield v. O’Callaghan. There is also consideration of the special position of local authority landlords (given recent developments in the tort of negligence, including Osman v. U.K.), the scope of the tort of private nuisance, and a survey of statutory remedies which might be used in addition to those in tort.

“Not only would it be a bold and brave judge … who would seek to interfere with the discretion of doctors acting under the Abortion Act 1967, but I think he would really be a foolish judge who would try to do any such thing, unless, possibly, where there is clear bad faith and an obvious attempt to perpetrate a criminal offence.” So said Sir George Baker P. in Paton v. B.P.A.S. and his view has been repeated at apposite judicial moments in subsequent cases. Recently, however, a legal attempt was indeed made to question the discretion of doctors in Jepson v. The Chief Constable of West Mercia Police Constabulary. Reverend Joanna Jepson asked the West Mercia Police to investigate doctors who had authorised an abortion for bilateral cleft lip and palate at 28 weeks under the disability ground of the Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990). Abortion is legal under that section if two doctors have formed an opinion in good faith that “there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped”.