Search results

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

This paper explores the experience of “Shari’a” as non-state law in the English courts through a historical analysis of past Islamic finance dispute resolutions (IFDRs). This paper aims to propose a conceivable scenario relating to the law applicable in international commercial contracts in the English courts with the emergence of the Hague Principles 2015.

This paper addresses several issues that have been raised in English case law: doubts about the legal nature of “Shari’a” as non-state law; the limits placed on freedom of choice of “Shari’a” law by the application of a single legal system; and the distinction between application of law and incorporation by reference of “Shari’a” in IFDRs. The paper then analyses the conformity of “Shari’a” with the provisions now used to resolve Islamic finance disputes (trade and investment) in the English courts, using an empirical analysis of The Accounting and Auditing Organization for Islamic Financial Institutions standards.

The paper provides that, in theory, “Shari’a” standards could play a significant role in IFDRs after Brexit, even though a gap persists in practice because the Hague Principles 2015 have not yet been adopted by the English legal system.

The study focuses on the English courts and shows how the IFDRs could be resolved with the emergence of Hague Principles 2015 in the post-Brexit era.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this paper appears to be the first paper to provide a conceivable scenario relating to the future of the IFDRs in the English courts.

Compares and contrasts the contractual role of bills of lading in the context of Greek, US and English law. Discusses the legal status and contractual roles of these lading bills in the context of the legislative provisions and associated case law in each of the three countries. Concludes that the role of these bills is unsettled and there is no uniform perception. Recommends measures involving amendments to English legislation, to consolidate the regulation of international trade.

May 10, 1971 Master and Servant — Contract of employment — “International contract” — Dutch company recruiting European personnel to work on oil rigs outside their countries of origin — Printed form in Americanised English adaptable for different nationals — Payment in sterling — Clause stating that employers Dutch and contract wholly performable outside employee's country of origin — Clause under which employee accepting company's benefit programme in case of accident in lieu of all rights under law of his own country — Provision in clause excluding employers' liability void in English law — Englishman entering into contract in England for work on rig off Nigerian coast — Injury at work after two weeks — Action for damages for negligence begun in England against Dutch employers — Whether proper law governing contract Dutch or English — Whether injured Englishman confined to benefits under benefit programme valid in Dutch international contract.

Singapore and the UK share the same common law heritage. English law was imported into Singapore through the colonisation of the island in the nineteenth‐century. Singapore law developed in a similar manner to English law, subject to exceptions to reflect the different ethnic and religious identity of Singapore. It is not true to say that English law and Singapore law are identical, despite their common law roots. Since the passing of the Application of the English Law Act in 1993, English statutes are no longer automatically followed in Singapore; however, English common law principles reflected in case law continue to be important. This paper looks at applications in contract law of key areas relating to building defects, such as materials, workmanship and design, in the context of contract law in Singapore.

Our Dublin correspondent telegraphed last night:

This article combines two sources of data to shed light on the nature of transactional legal work. The first consists of stories about contracts that circulate among elite transactional lawyers. The stories portray lawyers as ineffective market actors who are uninterested in designing superior contracts, who follow rather than lead industry standards, and who depend on governments and other outside actors to spur innovation and correct mistakes. We juxtapose these stories against a dataset of sovereign bond contracts produced by these same lawyers. While the stories suggest that lawyers do not compete or design innovative contracts, their contracts suggest the contrary. The contracts, in fact, are consistent with a market narrative in which lawyers engage in substantial innovation despite constraints inherent in sovereign debt legal work. Why would lawyers favor stories that paint them in a negative light and deny them a potent role as market actors? We conclude with some conjectures as to why this might be so.

This study aims to examine the application of the fraud exception to the autonomy principle that governs the work of letters of credit in both Jordanian and English law. While it has been reiterated that the application of such exception before the English courts is difficult, this study highlights and critically analyzes some of the reasons that lie behind such a difficulty. Moreover, this study compares the English approach with the Jordanian approach to this specific area of law to find out what each can benefit from the approach of the other. The extent to which both approaches have been successful in applying such an exception will be examined thoroughly in this paper.

To examine how effective is the approaches followed by the English and Jordanian Courts in applying the fraud exception in this context, this work makes use of the secondary data available in this regard as the main method to complete such an examination. By critically analyzing and comparing the various data contained in these sources, this work identifies the problems associated with such approaches.

This work suggests that while the autonomy principle in letters of credit has what shall maintain its role as an important principle, the fraud exception application shall be facilitated. It further submits that the English Courts attitude to this specific area of law is somehow ambiguous and intertwined as it does not distinguish between two different stages that are existent in this context, namely, the submission of the documents stage “the prerequisite” that in case of submitting genuine, truthful and complying documents would activate the autonomy principle and the following stage which starts after activating the autonomy principle and which to it a fraud exception can be applied.

This work proposes that a beneficiary of a letter of credit shall satisfy a prerequisite before it can be said that he is protected under the autonomy principle. Such a prerequisite dictates that he shall submit genuine, truthful and complying documents to activate the autonomy principle and once the beneficiary submits such documents it can be said that the autonomy principle, which fraud is an exception to it, has been activated. Furthermore, this work proposes that English Courts shall adopt an approach similar to the Jordanian approach in relation to the application of the fraud exception, whereas the latter requires proving neither the beneficiary’s fraudulent intent nor his knowledge of it but rather applies a more realistic test concerned merely with the goods’ quality and quantity.

Company law harmonisation is considered to be necessary for the achievement of the European Union's (EU) aim of a single market and the free movement of goods and services throughout member states. This paper aims to contribute to understanding of both business and accounting history by considering whether UK legal history can offer any insight into the process of harmonisation. First, approaches to company law in the United Kingdom and the remainder of the EU are outlined in order to identify key differences and to explain why harmonisation is desired. Secondly, the UK position is considered and historical attempts to lessen legal differences between Scots and English mercantile laws are then examined, focusing on harmonisation attempts. Finally, by reflecting on the UK experience, implications for the EU company law harmonisation programme are drawn.

The use of law reports as a source for data on citation patterns in the courts of law has been pioneered in the United States and to some extent in Canada. Very little work has been undertaken within the English legal system until now. The difficulties faced are noted: the complexity of the court structures and the law reporting system, but above all the limitations of using law reports rather than the original case transcripts which are difficult to obtain. A citation file was built from the citations included in all the issues of fifty‐eight different law report titles issued during 1985. Since there is a degree of duplication in coverage of cases between the law report publications, 5,260 versions of 2,451 unique cases were discovered, yielding a file of 25,868 citations (excluding those to statutory materials). The file was reduced to 11,159 citations (excluding those to statutory materials) by selecting only the longest versions, according to the number of words, of each of the 2,451 cases. Analyses are presented on the general characteristics of the citation file (the proportion of citations to each of twenty‐four different material types), the frequency of citation to statutory materials, case law and other materials (each cross‐tabulated by citing court, subject matter of the citing case and, except for statutory materials, whether the citation occurred in argument by counsel only or in the judgement). For case law only further analyses were performed to identify the jurisdiction of cited cases, self citation practice by different courts, the ageing of authority, the law report titles from which cited cases were taken, the use of unreported cases, and the occurrence of cases without citations to earlier case law.