In the three complementary parts into which this book is divided, namely, The Story, The Legal Solutions, and The Financial Solution, Sir Cecil Kisch has set out the several aspects of the famous Portuguese Bank Note Case (Banco de Portugal v. Waterlow & Sons, Ltd. [1932] A. C. 452) in a way to quicken the mind and gladden the heart of lawyer, economist and dilettante in detection alike. The primary purpose of the book, however, is to put to the test of economicanalysis the various views brought out in the course of the case as to the measure of loss to the Bank of Portugal arising from the fraudulent issue of Vasco da Gama notes

The legal status of contracts tainted by the restraint of trade rules is by no means clear. It has been judicially stated that such contracts are “not ‘illegal’, in the sense that a contract to do a prohibited or immoral act is illegal, [and] not ‘unenforceable’, in the sense that a contract within the Statute of Frauds is unenforceable for want of writing. These covenants lie somewhere in between. They are invalid and unenforceable. The law does not punish them. It simply takes no notice of them. They are void, not illegal.” This article discusses the legal position if a claim is made for the recovery of money paid or securities delivered under such contracts, in the particular context of pension rights.

The Defective Premises Act 1972—which did not come into force until 1 January 1974—was intended to do three things: first, it was intended to create a new civil remedy against incompetent architects and jerry builders who design or build bad dwelling-houses; secondly, it was intended to abolish the anomalous immunity of vendors and lessors from negligence actions; and thirdly, it was intended to widen the liability of landlords for defects in the premises which they let. The Act is based on the draft Bill annexed to the Law Commission's fortieth report, “Civil Liability of Vendors and Lessors of Defective Premises”—although in the Act the Law Commission's proposals have been considerably watered down. During the passage of the Act through Parliament the Law Commission was congratulated on its “remarkable piece of work,” and comentators have since welcomed it, either without criticism or else with fulsome praise. So excited was everyone by the label “law reform” that no one seems to have pointed out a number of obvious defects in the Law Commission's original proposals, defects which were multiplied when those proposals were heavily watered down. The final measure is open to a number of criticisms. It is, with all due respect to the Law Commission and to the sponsors of the Bill, a measure which adopts excessively cumbrous means to achieve relatively modest ends; which is drafted in terms which are longwinded, ugly and obscure; and which ultimately changes little—a poor show in view of the complications it creates in the process.

IN Vizcaya Partners Ltd. v Picard [2016] UKPC 5, the Privy Council considered an attempt to enforce a New York judgment in Gibraltar. The judgment debtor was not present in New York at the time the New York court assumed jurisdiction, which suggested that enforcement of the US judgment would be refused for want of jurisdiction. However, the argument of the judgment creditor was that an express choice of New York law in the contract, coupled with other factors, was sufficient to imply submission of the parties to the courts of New York (and, accordingly, vest the New York courts with jurisdiction for the purposes of enforcement of the New York judgment). The crux of the case was thus whether the terms of the contract could indicate submission to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, even if that submission was not crystallised in the form of an express contractual provision. The Privy Council held that, while, in principle, it might be possible to imply submission, on the facts, there was no such submission so that the judgment was unenforceable.

English law traditionally draws no distinction between the liability of public bodies and that of private individuals. There is no general right to recover damages in respect of loss caused by an administrative act, even where that act is unlawful according to public law principles. An aggrieved individual must establish an ordinary private law cause of action: Supreme Court Act 1981, section 31(4). One of the most important innovations contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 is the creation of a form of public law liability. Section 6(1) states that it is unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with a Convention right. Section 7 enables a victim of an act contrary to section 6 to bring proceedings against the offending authority. Section 8(3) empowers the court to award damages if it is satisfied that such an award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the victim.