当前位置: X-MOL 学术Camb. Law J. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
HISTORIOGRAPHY AND THE LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925: THE RETURN OF FRANKENSTEIN
The Cambridge Law Journal ( IF 1.909 ) Pub Date : 2018-09-24 , DOI: 10.1017/s0008197318000697
Juanita Roche

This article considers how problems in legal historiography can lead to real legal problems, through a case-study of two recent judgments which appear to revolutionise the law on overreaching under section 2(1)(ii) of the Law of Property Act 1925. Their reasoning ignored plain wording in the Act, in a way foreshadowed by problems in the historiography of the 1925 property legislation; and the legislative history shows that the version of overreaching they promote, one with a clear political meaning, was rejected by Parliament. One of these decisions has now been reversed on appeal, but on reasoning so untenable as to invite further challenge; and now two Court of Appeal judgments on overreaching contradict, without even mentioning, two prior Court of Appeal decisions and a decision of the House of Lords. The court should reaffirm the law on overreaching, and academics should develop a new historiography.

中文翻译:

1925 年史学和财产法:弗兰肯斯坦的回归

本文通过对最近的两项判决进行案例研究,探讨了法律史学中的问题如何导致真正的法律问题,这两项判决似乎彻底改变了 1925 年《财产法》第 2(1)(ii) 条下关于过度扩张的法律。推理忽略了该法案中的简单措辞,1925 年财产立法的史学问题预示了这一点;立法历史表明,他们提倡的具有明确政治意义的过度扩张的版本被议会否决。其中一项决定现已在上诉中被推翻,但其理由站不住脚,以至于引发了进一步的挑战;而现在,上诉法院的两项关于越权的判决与上诉法院先前的两项裁决和上议院的一项裁决相矛盾,甚至没有提及。
更新日期:2018-09-24
down
wechat
bug