First published in 1885, the Law Quarterly Review provides authoritative and critical analysis on a broad range of legal issues. It is widely acclaimed as a leading platform for scholarly legal debate in the UK and throughout the common law world.
- With four issues a year, the Law Quarterly Review keeps readers up-to-date with many important legal developments.
- The Law Quarterly Review is committed to providing a balanced coverage of developments in the common law world.
- Issues covered are relevant to both academics and practitioners.
Recent Coverage
In 2023, the L.Q.R. continued to pursue an important element of its policy by publishing 26 notes relating to recent court decisions or to other legal developments, in particular statutory ones. It should be noted that a number of them dealt, principally, with developments other than under English law. They included the following contributions:
- 1. Professor Sir Roy Goode on what properly constitutes property under English law (see “What is Property?” (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 1). The note has proved of great interest and created much discussion for our large number of our readers.
- 2. Ms. Senara Eggleton on Hughes v Rattan [2022] EWCA Civ 107, in which she argues that the Court of Appeal had, very reasonably, avoided the creation of arbitrary distinctions between the treatment in law of allegations of negligence against doctors and those against dentists (see (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 193).
- 3. Professor David Campbell on Reference by the Lord Advocate of Devolution Issues Under Paragraph 34 of Schedule 6 to the Scotland Act 1998 [2022] UKSC 31, in which case the Supreme Court unanimously affirmed a limitation on the competence of the Scottish Parliament as regards a referendum about Scottish independence (see (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 354).
- 4. Dr. Jaclyn Neo on Tan Seng Kee v AG [2022] SGCA 16, where the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether or not the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectations that is recognised by English law (see R. v North and East Devon HA Ex p. Coughlan [2001] Q.B. 213) is also recognised by Singapore law. It decided not only that it is so recognised, but also that it is capable of suspending the enforcement of a statutory provision, and not just of striking down executive or administrative acts (see (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 384).
- 5. Professor James Lee on Fearn v Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery [2023] UKSC 4, which concerned the extremely controversial issue of whether or not those people living in flats overlooked by the viewing terrace of the Blatnavik Building at the Tate Modern could sue the Gallery on the basis that the actions of museum visitors in viewing and taking pictures of what was going on in their flats constituted intrusions upon them capable of amounting to a nuisance. The Supreme Court held by a 3-2 majority that they were so actionable (see (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 535).
As regards articles published in 2023, the L.Q.R. continued to publish pieces on widely divergent aspects of the law. Examples showing the variety of topics covered are:
- 1. “Final Court Jurisprudence in the Crystallisation Era” by Professor Neil Duxbury (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 153, dealing with the notion current in what he describes as the (former) “Crystallisation Era”, that some decisions of the House of Lords should be protected from abrogation except by legislation.
- 2. “Rethinking Fault Liability and Strict Liability in the Law of Torts”” by Professor James Goudkamp (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 269, in which it is argued that the practice of pigeonholing torts according to the categories of fault liability and strict liability conceals the complexity of tort law and obscures more than it illuminates.
- 3. “The History of Double Jeopardy and Criminal Jurisdiction: US v Gamble (2019) and R. v Hutchinson (1677)” by Professor Ann Mumford and Professor Peter Alldridge (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 390, arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court in Gamble, in ruling that the English decision in Hutchinson could safely be left out of account as regards whether or not, where two prosecutions on the same matter are brought by “separate sovereigns”, the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment is violated, had misinterpreted what the latter case stood for.
- 4. “Privacy, Freedom of Expression and Legitimate Audience Interest” by Professor N.A. Moreham (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 412, concerning the factors that should properly be taken into account when weighing privacy interests against freedom of expression ones in the misuse of private information tort.
- 5. “Reconceiving Wrongdoing in Lawful Act Duress” by Ms. Iona Branford and Dr. Jodi Gardner (2023) 139 L.Q.R. 629, considering, in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court, in Times Travel v Pakistan International Airline Corporation [2021] UKSC 40, when, if ever, the law should recognise a doctrine of lawful act duress, and what the scope of any such a doctrine should be.
If you’re interested in firmwide or multiple user access to this title on Proview then please contact us directly to discuss what options are available.