V. H. Harpwood

GREAT TORT SIGNPOSTS OF ASSISTANCE FOR THE COMMON LAW SERIES

Ken Oliphant has brought together his excellent team of ten for the common law title ‘Tort’, or ‘Torts’ as some prefer it, as the second in this series from Butterworths which sets a very high standard throughout its 1700 pages.

The work provides an in-depth analysis of the modern law of torts set out in 30 chapters with a user-friendly index and rather a lot of footnotes which is to be expected when identifying principles derived from judicial decisions and legislation where you must have the detail. Under Oliphant’s guidance the team has produced a worthy rival for its heavyweight competitors with each bringing its own gifts to the practitioner, judge, academic lawyer and student. So what makes this work different?

THE RIGHT SIGNPOSTS

The style is different and very much a trademark of the Butterworths stable of books to start with, and what I would expect from Butterworths. It provides a clear and authoritative exposition of the existing law with each chapter very much the domain of the individual distinguished contributor.

The section headings are well chosen signposts as Sir Malcolm Pill describes them in his original Foreword, and both practitioners and students will benefit from the further thought and study suggestions contained here. I welcome, particularly, the sorts of issues which are likely to be raised by a set of facts which may be given to me by my client, and I now know where to look for possible solutions set out clearly and logically as great guidance.

I am glad Andrew Grubb clarifies these principles as ‘Torts Law’ for that is what it is within the common law as a series of civil responsibilities which go with rights. The waffling word ‘obligations’, which is the current favourite term to define ‘tort’ as a compartment, is something Oliphant tries valiantly to do on page one, as just about every writer has done in the past, and he makes a very good go at it.

I have always enjoyed the argument about whether we have ‘tortious liability’ favoured by ‘you know who’ and his other judicially unorthodox brothers of the recent past who were keen on creating certain types of equity to get the right judicial answer, or ‘specific torts’.

I think the ‘torts’ have it at the moment but who knows what might happen during the twenty-first century with the internet revolution and digitalisation. Let’s just say it is a civil liability and use the rights/responsibilities concept and reasonableness rather than the Euro word ‘proportionate’ which translates better (apparently).

THE JUDICIAL LINK

This book is also useful for judges as it gives a degree of guidance on what the accepted view of the law is whilst thinking about a reformulation or change in the direction of the law deemed appropriate to its time – what Denning actually tried to do. So, if you are in court look around for the Butterworths series and you will know where his lordship is coming from!

THE SERIES DIRECTION

Grubb, as series editor, succeeds with his stated legal direction for these great literary contributions to the modern statements of law from Butterworths, who are the natural historic leaders with Halsbury. Oliphant and his team have produced great assistance on understanding torts so that the law itself is “less likely to be left undeveloped ‘marching…in the rear limping a little’” which Grubb quotes from a famous judicial aphorism by Windeyer J in Mount Isa Mines v Pusey.

The signposts are up with this common law series, and practitioners can take the direction they want for their own practice- mine is clearly this signposted direction with its welcome contribution to the literature and the understanding of the law of torts- it has helped and encouraged me to identify potential developments in the law, and advice to clients, and I thank the distinguished contributors for sharing their knowledge and views with people like me who practice and teach the subject to the public.… (altro)