No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 January 2018
1. [1995] 2 AC 207 at 260, quoting Sir Donald Nicholls V-C at 223E–F.
2. [2002] UKHL 22, [2003] 1 AC 32 at [32]: ‘The law must be developed coherently, in accordance with principle, so as to serve, even-handedly, the ends of justice. If, however, a decision is given in this country which offends one's basic sense of justice, and if consideration of international sources suggests that a different and more acceptable decision would be given in most other jurisdictions, whatever their legal tradition, this must prompt anxious review of the decision in question.’
3. See Lord Steyn ‘Perspectives of corrective and distributive justice in tort law’ (2002) 37 Irish Jurist 1–15. Note also ‘Contract law: fulfilling the reasonable expectations of honest men’ (1997) 113 LQR 433.
4. [2003] 1 AC 32 at [36].
5. [1932] AC 562.
6. 162 NE 99 (NY CA 1928).
7. [1951] AC 850.
8. [1967] 1 AC 617.
9. [1961] AC 388.
10. Beever is somewhat inconsistent on this point. He is careful to confine his study to negligence, but cannot help in places straying into broader issues of tort law.
11. England and Wales, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. Beever additionally makes some reference to civil law jurisdictions.
12. Beever, p 217.
13. Ibid, p 133.
14. [1999] 2 AC 455 at 502.
15. ‘In what vies with Lord Atkin's judgment in Donoghue v Stevenson for the greatest single judgment in the history of the law of negligence’: Beever, p 125.
16. Beever, p 315.
17. Ibid, p 61.
18. Ibid, pp 31–32.
19. [2001] UKHL 22, [2002] 1 AC 215.
20. Beever, p 514.
21. [2006] UKHL 28, [2007] 1 AC 181 at [51].