There are few other areas in family law where incongruence between the legal and social positions is as evident as that concerning parenthood. Recent cases involving lesbian couples and known sperm donors serve to highlight the increasing tension between the respective roles of biology, intention and functional parenting in the attribution of legal parental status. As both legislative and case-law developments have shown, intention is central in some circumstances, but not in others. The main claim of this paper is that this ad hoc approach leads to incoherent and unsatisfactory law: instead of striving to identify a status, what we are really looking to do is to identify the people who assume responsibility for a child. Drawing upon recent case-law, this paper explores how a conceptual reform of the law could result in a principled framework which would place formally recognised intention at the heart of parental status in order to reconnect legal duty with social reality for as many children and parents as possible. Moreover, it would ensure that parental status would not be dictated by the mode of conception of the child (natural or assisted). The analysis identifies the objectives of reform before proposing a new model which, while recognising the social importance of the biological parentage link, would reserve legal status for functional parenthood.

Although cartel behaviour is almost universally (and rightly) condemned, it is not clear why cartel participants deserve the full wrath of the criminal law and its associated punishment. To fill this void, I develop a normative (or principled) justification for the criminalisation of conduct characteristic of ‘hard core’ cartels. The paper opens with a brief consideration of the rhetoric commonly used to denounce cartel activity, eg that it ‘steals from’ or ‘robs’ consumers. To put the discussion in context, a brief definition of ‘hard core’ cartel behaviour is provided and the harms associated with this activity are identified. These are: welfare losses in the form of appropriation (from consumer to producer) of consumer surplus, the creation of deadweight loss to the economy, the creation of productive inefficiency (hindering innovation of both products and processes), and the creation of so-called X-inefficiency. As not all activities which cause harm ought to be criminalised, a theory as to why certain harms in a liberal society can be criminalised is developed. It is based on JS Mill's harm to others principle (as refined by Feinberg) and on a choice of social institutions using Rawls's ‘veil of ignorance.’ The theory is centred on the value of individual choice in securing one's own well-being, with the market as an indispensable instrument for this. But as applied to the harm associated with cartel conduct, this theory shows that none of the earlier mentioned problems associated with this activity provide sufficient justification for criminalisation. However, as the harm from hard core cartel activity strikes at an important institution which permits an individual's ability to secure their own well-being in a liberal society, criminalisation of hard core cartel behaviour can have its normative justification on this basis.

Three forms of ‘material contribution’ are discussed within the context of the traditional ‘but for’ test of causation. The NESS test (Necessary Element in at least one Sufficient Set) is shown to offer a more appropriate approach when causal over-determination is present as in, for instance, Fairchild and other cases involving multiple sources of asbestos. The particular problems posed by the recent Sienkiewicz case are then examined. It is argued that removing the incoherence in the common law of causation in personal injury will require the judiciary to overcome its antipathy to statistical evidence.

This paper considers an often ignored topic in the English system of precedent, the role of High Court precedent in the county court. In doing so it reveals the many weaknesses of the existing approach to lower court precedent. It is argued that the High Court, (generally) a first instance tribunal, which does not bind itself and can come to contradictory decisions in different cases, the later not overruling the earlier, should not bind any court below it. A model of how multi-tiered first instance tribunals, such as the High Court and county court, should interact is demonstrated by the approach taken between the Court of Session, Outer House, and inferior courts in Scotland.

A relatively recent collective work published in France examines the extent to which social science knowledge is cumulative. However this work includes no chapter on law. The purpose of this paper is to imagine what a chapter on law might look like had one been invited by the editor. Is legal knowledge cumulative? This present paper is sceptical, although much depends on where one erects the boundaries between law and other social science disciplines. Yet, despite the scepticism, a reflection on cumulativeness and legal knowledge is not without interest. Indeed quite the opposite: for it generates a range of interesting sub-questions such as whether or not there have been paradigm changes in the discipline of law amounting to scientific revolutions.

This paper examines the nature of welfare and best interests as used in medical and family law. It argues that these are commonly presented in individualistic terms, requiring the court to promote the interests of a child or incompetent adult without reference to the interests of others. However, this paper argues that, properly understood, best interests and welfare should be taken as concepts which recognise the importance of relational interests, the performance of obligations, and the virtue of altruism.