No account of the history of English legal literature can omit the name of Littleton. Sir Thomas Littleton's treatise on tenures made the family name almost synonymous with the common law itself. But it is not generally known that another member of that illustrious family left unfinished a work which, had it been completed and published, would have earned him a position of importance in the history, not only of English, but of universal jurisprudence. In so far as the will ought to be taken for the deed, perhaps some measure of recognition may justifiably be afforded to his work even after three centuries of oblivion. The author was Edward Littleton (1589–1645), Baron Littleton of Munslow, a direct descendant of Sir Thomas. Educated at Christ Church College, Oxford, he entered the Inner Temple in 1608; and there, like his near-contemporary John Selden (1584–1654), he developed a taste for comparative jurisprudence, legal history, and the study of records. His reputation for learning brought him in 1640 to the seat of Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and within a year he was made Lord Keeper. The transition to high office was a personal disaster, since Littleton's nature did not suit him for a position of political delicacy, and his brief tenure of the Seal was scarcely less miserable than that of his predecessor Finch—who had fled to Holland in 1640. Among Littleton's first tasks was to preside over the preliminaries to the proposed impeachments of Finch and the ship-money judges, and the lengthy preparations for the trial of Strafford. Within months he became ill, and from February until August 1641 he absented himself from the House of Lords. The following year, either from fear or high-mindedness, he quit London, following the King to York and thence to Oxford. In his hurried flight he apparently left behind some of his goods and papers in the “Black Lodgings” in the Inner Temple. His health continued to deteriorate, and he died (aged 56) on 27 August 1645.

This article seeks to demonstrate three things. First, the orthodox conceptualisation of the tort of public nuisance is flawed, since: (1) it is in violation of basic private law principles related to privity and the actionability of crimes and (2) if taken seriously would mandate that the tort be abolished (as torts protect private not public rights). Second, the rights at the heart of the tort are the privately actionable rights to pass and repass on public highways and to fish in public waters, and that it is plausible that a sophisticated legal system would recognise such rights. Third, a tort reconceptualised in this way can make sense of: (1) the special damage rule that is generally thought arbitrary and (2) the general intuition that the recovery of damages for pure personal injuries is best left to other torts.

TWO important decisions have recently considered the effect of human rights law on domestic property law: Kay v. Lambeth L.B.C.; Leeds C.C. v. Price, and J.A. Pye (Oxford) Ltd. v. United Kingdom. In each case, the claimant brought a domestic proprietary claim, one successfully, the other unsuccessfully, against a defendant. The aggrieved party argued that the domestic legal outcome conflicted with his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. In each case, the court had to decide whether the Convention had indeed been infringed by the bringing of a proprietary claim and, if so, what the consequences of that infringement might be.

The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms makes no mention of any right to procedural justice in the making of administrative decisions. Any protection for such rights must be found in Article 6(1) which provides that in the determination of their “civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. But Article 6(1) was originally intended to apply to the determination of private law rights only and not to public law matters (see Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere v. Belgium (1981) 4 E.H.R.R. 1, 36 (Sir Vincent Evans, dissenting); Konig v. Germany (1978) 2 E.H.R.R. 170 (Matscher J., dissenting)). The article plainly envisages judicial proceedings, and there are obvious difficulties in applying it straightforwardly to administrative proceedings.

In R. v. Dica [2004] 3 W.L.R. 213, the Court of Appeal decided that a man who knows that he is infected with the HIV virus but who infects his unsuspecting sexual partner through unprotected sexual intercourse should be punishable for inflicting grievous bodily harm, contrary to section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Court did in fact quash the conviction of the accused, because the judge at the Old Bailey had not instructed the jury to decide whether or not the two infected partners of the accused had known of his infection and agreed to take the risk of contracting it themselves (this having been in dispute at the trial). Yet the case was sent for retrial, and if the next jury, properly directed, should find that his partners did not agree to take the risk of contracting the potentially fatal virus, then Dica would be properly convicted under OAPA, section 20.

This paper is concerned with the way in which the verb occidere was treated in the Lex Aquilia and with the explanation for this.

Professor Dieter Nörr appears to have offered the most recent explanation of the narrow scope given to the verb in the first chapter of the statute. He makes two points. First, he traces the distinction between direct killing (occidere) and indirectly causing death (mortis causam praestare or praebere) to early Greek law and speculates that this distinction was transmitted into Roman law through the Greek schools of rhetoric. Secondly, he suggests that the Lex Cornelia de sicarüs et veneficis included the phrase mortis causam praestare. If true, this second point would show how firmly the distinction had become established. The phrase would also have provided an obvious parallel for the jurists when engaged in interpreting the Lex Aquilia.

The student who seeks to discover the essential elements of the crime of Assault at Common Law as distinct from Battery does not receive much help from the standard text-books. Most of them in substance follow the description of assault given by Hawkins: ‘An assault is an attempt or offer, with force and violence, to do a corporal hurt to another.’

In Kleinwort Benson v. Lincoln City Council [1998] 3 W.L.R. 1095 the House of Lords heard consolidated appeals arising out of the failure of interest rate swap transactions entered into between various banks and local authorities. Having paid out considerable sums under the swap arrangements, the banks were disconcerted to find them declared ultra vires and void (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham L.B.C. [1992] 2 A.C. 1). The Lords have now held that sums paid by the banks may be recovered back, by action in restitution for mistake. In so holding, they have abrogated the rule that a mistake of law is not actionable, and denied (at least on these facts) any defence that the parties acted on the basis of “settled law”.