Premium
Gray Areas in Tort: Illegality and Authority after Patel v Mirza
Author(s) -
Fisher James C.
Publication year - 2021
Publication title -
the modern law review
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.37
H-Index - 22
eISSN - 1468-2230
pISSN - 0026-7961
DOI - 10.1111/1468-2230.12637
Subject(s) - supreme court , gray (unit) , law , tort , political science , position (finance) , certainty , sociology , philosophy , economics , liability , medicine , finance , epistemology , radiology
This comment describes and critiques the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust . It considers in particular the Court's position on the effect of Patel v Mirza on previous illegality case law. It analyses the enduring tensions between Patel and the House of Lords’ decision in Gray v Thames Trains , which the Supreme Court in Henderson upheld as enduringly authoritative notwithstanding the rearticulation of the illegality principle in Patel . It assesses the logical problems in the Supreme Court's position, and contextualises it as an attempt to mitigate Patel ‘s potentially disruptive effects on legal certainty.