Any views expressed within media held on this service are those of the contributors, should not be taken as approved or endorsed by the University, and do not necessarily reflect the views of the University in respect of any particular issue.
Press "Enter" to skip to content

Tag: tort law

Romantic Partner Torts: Contemporary Problems and the Legal History of Taking Heartbreak Seriously

by Dr Jinal Dadiya, Lecturer in Law, Goldsmiths University of London

Introduction

There has been a recent rise in former romantic partners instituting tortious actions against one another for events which took place within the course of their romantic relationships. This is the case both in the UK,[1] and in other common law jurisdictions.[2] In the last year, English courts have seen at least two influential personalities being sued by their romantic partners in tort.[3] Currently, the law of obligations tries to resolve such disputes by applying general standards of private law, without however recognising special duties or exceptions on account of the parties’ romantic involvement. This reticence has been rationalised through appeals to discretion, emotional complexity, the public-private divide, and the perceived moral volatility of intimacy.[4] As courts and legislatures confront coercive control, emotional manipulation, and technologically mediated abuse, an important jurisprudential reconsideration is underway: what constitutes a civil wrong in the context of romantic relationships, and how might tort law be recalibrated to attend to it? In this blog entry, I argue that normative answers may be found in legal histories of heartbreak.

Leave a Comment

Attributing Wrongdoing Without Persons? Competition Law and the Challenge to Delict Theory: Part II

by Grigoris Bacharis, Lecturer in Private Law, Edinburgh Law School

I. Introduction

In my previous post, I explored the emergence of enforcement or regulatory delicts and, in particular, how the doctrine of the undertaking transitioned from public enforcement to competition damages claims. I argued that this development represents a striking departure from private law’s commitment to the concept of legal personality. By attributing liability not to a legal person but to an “economic unit,” the doctrine unsettles, among other things, the principle that responsibility must track wrongdoing and personhood.

As a tentative explanation for why this extension only applies in competition law, I proposed that the law tolerates such a radical departure from the principle of legal personality because there are certain delicts, such as competition damages, that have a hybrid character, part private, part public.

But should the law of delict and tort accommodate this shift? I argue that while the undertaking doctrine might be defensible on enforcement grounds, its coherence with private law’s normative architecture is deeply contested.

Leave a Comment

Attributing Wrongdoing Without Persons? Competition Law and the Challenge to Delict Theory: Part I

by Grigoris Bacharis, Lecturer in Private Law, Edinburgh Law School

I. Introduction

I begin with a broad claim that I cannot fully defend here,[1] but wish to illustrate in part: significant areas of European delict (or tort) law are undergoing a subtle but meaningful transformation. Across domains such as environmental harm, data protection, and competition enforcement, delictual claims are increasingly mobilised to serve regulatory aims. As scholars like Kysar have noted, claimants are no longer simply seeking redress for private wrongs.[2] They are enforcing public norms through private litigation.

This shift gives rise to what might be called enforcement or regulatory delicts: private actions that retain the formal structure of delict law but pursue objectives—deterrence, compliance, and systemic accountability—that are quintessentially public. The trend is inspired mainly by American legal practice, where private enforcement, via torts, federal claims, mass litigation, and settlements, is widespread and arguably expanding.[3]

Leave a Comment

Fearn v Tate Gallery Board of Trustees in the Court of Appeal: Curtains for Article 8 rights in the Tort of Private Nuisance?

The claimants in Fearn v Tate Gallery Board of Trustees were the owners of luxury flats, featuring “striking” floor-to-ceiling windows, adjacent to the Tate Modern on the south bank of the Thames. Residents complained, when giving evidence at first instance, that they felt “more or less constantly watched” by visitors to the gallery’s roof-top viewing platform “as if they were in a zoo”.

Comments closed
css.php

Report this page

To report inappropriate content on this page, please use the form below. Upon receiving your report, we will be in touch as per the Take Down Policy of the service.

Please note that personal data collected through this form is used and stored for the purposes of processing this report and communication with you.

If you are unable to report a concern about content via this form please contact the Service Owner.

Please enter an email address you wish to be contacted on. Please describe the unacceptable content in sufficient detail to allow us to locate it, and why you consider it to be unacceptable.
By submitting this report, you accept that it is accurate and that fraudulent or nuisance complaints may result in action by the University.

  Cancel