Law Quarterly Review, The

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 2024, the L.Q.R. continued to pursue an important element of its policy by publishing 24 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. The notes included the following contributions (with one example taken from each of the four issues):

1. Mr. Samuel Leung on PT Asuransi Tugu Pratama Indonesia TBK v Citibank NA (2023) 26 HKCFAR 1, a case, though principally concerned with limitation periods, also dealing with several fundamental issues including the test of apparent authority, the scope of the Quincecare duty (see Barclays Bank Plc v Quincecare Ltd [1992] 4 All E.R. 363) and the prerequisite of terminating a banking relationship. Though a Hong Kong decision, this was clearly a case that had considerable significance for English lawyers (see (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 27).
2. Professor Paul S. Davies on Secretary of State for the Home Department v Cox [2023] EWCA Civ 551, in which case the Court of Appeal had to consider an important issue with regard to section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. That issue relates to the strength of the presumption that a third party upon whom the contracting parties purport to confer a benefit may enforce against them the term that so confers it. By majority (Underhill L.J. and Lewis L.J., with Stuart-Smith L.J. dissenting), it was held that the presumption in question was, on the facts, rebutted, this being the first appellate case on the section to reach such a conclusion (see (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 171).
3. Professor Robert Stevens on Paul v Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust [2024] UKSC 1, where the Supreme Court of Appeal addressed the issue of whether or not, where a doctor fails to diagnose a life-threatening medical condition and the patient subsequently dies because of the lack of treatment, relatives who witness the death, then suffer psychiatric injury as a result, may recover damages from the doctor. In short, do doctors owe relatives a duty of care to protect them? By a majority of six to one (Lord Burrows dissenting), the court ruled in favour of the three patients who brought their claims (see (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 346).
4. Dr. Alexander Waghorn on Armstead v Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Company Ltd [2024] UKSC 6, which concerned a very difficult issue with regard to remoteness of loss in the law of negligence. Though the Supreme Court was unanimous in ruling that the loss in question was not too remote, that ruling was made in the face of rulings at both first instance and in the Court of Appeal the other way (see (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 502).

As regards articles published in 2024, the L.Q.R. continued to publish pieces on widely divergent aspects of the law. Examples showing the variety of topics covered are (again with one example taken from each of the four issues):

1. “A Pluralist View of Vicarious Liability in Tort” by Dr. Marco Cappelletti (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 61, dealing with what he argues is the academically favoured notion that a monist view of vicarious liability in Tort should be sought out, and proposing, rather, that the English law as to such liability has a sound theoretical basis, not in a stand-alone rationale, but in a mixture of goals, or functions, which are reflected in its constituent elements and which are the object of significant choices and trade-offs.
2. “A Principal’s Mental Incapacity and ‘Termination’ of the Agent’s Authority” by Dr. Rachel Leow (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 250, in which it is argued that the orthodox view, as established by Yonge v Toynbee [1910] 1 K.B. 215, that termination of the authority of an agent comes about automatically where the principal loses their mental capacity is problematic and ought to be superseded by a doctrine allowing for flexibility in catering for the different situations in which the argument for termination arises in that context.
3. “Judicial Review and Guidance” by Professor Tom Hickman and Professor Thomas Poole (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 381, arguing that insufficient attention has been paid by administrative lawyers to the way in which administrative rules have moved increasingly to centre stage in public law and that their variety and complexity needs to be attended to more seriously by legal scholars in the United Kingdom.
4. “Black Marbles, Blue Buses and Yellow Submarines” by Lord Leggatt (2024) 140 L.Q.R. 570, which starts off with the orthodox view that the standard of proof in civil cases, namely the balance of probabilities, is a straightforward concept, but goes on to argue that that is far from the truth and that it gives rise to some intriguing questions about the nature of probability and proof.

Author Guidelines

Professor Peter Mirfield, General Editor
Dr Hayley J. Hooper, Book Review Editor

Personal subscription now available – 50% discount

We are introducing a new single-user digital subscription on our eReader, ProView, at a special 50% discount off the standard subscription price.

This special 50% discount is only available to individuals (eg academic, researcher, student, sole practitioner, barrister, retired) and the subscription must be paid for personally. It applies to new subscriptions only.

Email us now at proviewtrial@thomsonreuters.com quoting #individual to trial this journal on ProView or for further details or click here for more information.

All Calendar Year and Any Time Start (ATS) subscriptions are subject to a continuous subscription agreement. This means that your subscriptions will automatically renew in future years, unless you tell us otherwise.

Before each renewal period we will send you an annual subscription statement to enable you to review your subscriptions. You must tell us about any changes within 30 days of the subscription statement date after which you will be invoiced and your subscription(s) will continue for a further year.

4 issues per annum.

Previous years’ bound volume editions: Please contact our customer service team via our website here for more information and pricing.

CLEAR. CLEVER. CONCISE

This title is also available on Westlaw UK, so that you can access it anywhere, anytime.

Having online access to the books you trust through Westlaw UK can add a whole new dimension to how you work with the commentary and guidance found across the breadth of our titles.

Westlaw UK's smart navigation, links to primary law in combination with the expertise within our portfolio of books providing you with a seamless, coherent, and integrated research experience every time you need to refer to the text.

Having access to your book through Westlaw means:

Enhanced contents pages

• Find what you’re looking for with ease, with content displayed clearly in easy-to-read tables
• Print, download or email entire chapters or sections using tick boxes by content sets
• Choose the way you view content sets with collapsible and expandable sections

Firm-wide availability

• Everyone has access, at all times

Links to primary law

• Jump directly to the authority you need with links to cases, legislation and journals

You can print/download/email

• Print, download and email your documents quickly, for use offline or to share with colleague

Access chapter PDFs

• Download chapters as they appear in print, ready for presentation in court

Supplement PDFs

• Download whole supplements to a main edition in PDF, ready for court

PDF supplement navigation

• Browse PDFs with ease using navigational aids and links within the document

A-Z indexing

• Browse directly to the letter you wish to search, without having to navigate long documents

Tables

• View tables of cases and legislation referred to it the text sorted alphabetically, and link directly to them

Pop-up footnotes

• View footnotes alongside the text and avoid the need to refer to the end of documents

Call 0345 600 9355 or contact us to find out more.

© Thomson Reuters.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, or stored in any retrieval system of any nature without prior written permission, except for permitted fair dealing under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or in accordance with the terms of a licence issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency in respect of photocopying and/or reprographic reproduction. Application for permission for other use of copyright material including permission to reproduce extracts in other published works shall be made to the publishers. Full acknowledgement of author, publisher and source must be given.
 
For further information on our products and services, visit www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk

Editorial Correspondence:

General Editor:
Professor Peter Mirfield
Jesus College
Oxford
OX1 3DW

Book Review Editor:
Dr Hayley J. Hooper
Harris Manchester College
Mansfield Road
Oxford
OX1 3TD

Publisher:
Sohini Banerjee
Thomson Reuters
5 Canada Square
Canary Wharf
London
E14 5AQ