Have Irlen Syndrome, or need different contrast? Click the button below for options.
Background Colours
Case law points to an entrenched divide between the treatment of domestic and commercial relationships, but is the objective test for determining an intention to create legal relations a fiction? Moreover, if it is, is the test a necessary fiction or one that is no longer fit for purpose?
12:00, 24th November 2020The Owners and Directors Test (ODT) is intended to ensure those who run English football clubs are fit for the job and preserve the integrity of the game - but is the current ODT fit for purpose in the wake of recent scandals and failures?
The public benefit requirement is a longstanding element of charitable trusts, and remains a key element in determining their validity. However, a recent case involving independent schools has caused some uncertainty, and left questions for Parliament to answer.
Two recent Supreme Court cases have reviewed and updated the case law on vicarious liability. WM Morrison Supermarkets v Various Claimants clarifies the controversial Mohamud case and what exactly constitutes a "close connection" in vicarious liability.
Two recent Supreme Court cases have reviewed and updated the case law on vicarious liability. Barclays Bank v Various Claimants explores the first step of the vicarious liability test, controversial recent case law, and the traditional divide between employees and contractors.
In response to the commercial disruption caused by the novel coronavirus pandemic, there has been an uptick in client interest and law firm advice on the doctrine of frustration. However, the doctrine is unlikely to apply to many of the situations created by the pandemic.
In a recent case regarding a Jersey trust, the Supreme Court disapplied a sixty-year-old convention of interpretation, significantly widening the scope of 'charitable purposes' for inheritance tax exemption.
Surrogacy laws, in their current state, have many unacceptable gaps. This has led to the judiciary having to creatively interpret the law, leading to a haphazard band-aid fix that doesn't match up with the clear language of the legislation. Reform by Parliament is needed.
The imposition of vicarious liability in the recent high-profile Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2018] case seems to be influenced particularly by the vulnerability of the claimant victims. This is unjustified and risks blurring vicarious liability with non-delegable duty liability.
Subscribe to Keep Calm Talk Law for email updates, and/or weekly roundups. You can tailor your subscription on activation. Both fields are required.