Talk:English law/Archive 1

Law of England and Wales

This article appears to contain a number of inaccuracies:

• there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as English law, just the law of England and Wales. The title of the article should reflect this.
• the article conflates English law with common law. The two are not one and the same. The law of England and Wales is composed of common law, equity, statute law, EU law etc. English law can be described as a "common law" system, which is perhaps where the confusion comes from.
• to say "European Union Law is effective in the UK" is a misleading over-simplification.

I'll correct this in a few days if nobody objects.

BobTheLawyer 22:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree that English law is not right, but English and Welsh law isn't right either -- it implies there are two separate jurisdictions. The usual form is "the Law of England and Wales". Could you change to that title (obviously with a sensible redirect). Francis Davey 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is very thin, and not the quality of introductory article which we might desire. It would be good if someone with the necessary knowledge could expand it considerably, and sub-divide it. --Doric Loon 21:50, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

• Since the devolution of Wales, the reference to the law of "England and Wales" in the first line should properly be the laws of England only. (At least from a lawyer's perspective!)

Sadly, this page made no legal sense. The correct legal term is "English law" and that term expressly includes all the legally enforceable material comprising the English and Welsh "laws". It has been a single unified system from time immemorial and constiutites a single state. I have therefore rewritten the page and moved it back to English law. David91 03:46, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

In your introduction you make it sound like Wales is governed by an English parliament and that that justifies calling the law English not English and Welsh. This was true until 1536 but since then the parliament in London represented England and Wales. In 1707 it became the British parliament. So if the British parliament makes laws for England and Wales how can those laws be 'English?' Scots law passed by the UK parliament was never called English so why is English and Welsh law?

Historically, the law was not derived from a Parliament (sitting wherever) but the common law developed by the courts. Now the fact is that England and Wales have a single legal system, where judges follow (and are bound to follow) each other's decisions. This has the effect that the law is identical in both countries except where a statute or rule explicitly makes them different (and even then they will be subject to the same rules of interpretation). Scots law has a completely different historical background and also is adminstered by different courts. That's why it is treated as a separate system. Even where the same law (i.e. statute or regulation) exists in both countries because it was passed by the UK Parliament, the courts in England and Wales might take a different view of its meaning to those in Scotland. Francis Davey 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely accept that the Law in England and Wales is the same. I also accept that since 1536 when Wales was legally joined to England historical Welsh Law was lost and historical English law replaced it. What I object to is this article, and indeed many legal professionals, calling this combined law now in use in England and Wales 'English Law.' Since 1536 and the incorporation of Wales into the Kingdom of England the Common Law has been created and applied equally by cases in England and Wales, therefore it is not English Common Law but English and Welsh Common Law. I also accept that for centuries Wales was ignored in legal nomenclature and the term 'England' used when England and Wales was meant. However in recent times people have accepted that even though England is bigger it should not totally obliterate Wales and that nomenclature should be accurate. The law used in New Zealand is based on English law and has many features in common with it and until very recently its highest court of appeal was the London based Privvy Council. However despite this close link to English law, we still call it New Zealand Law. We do this because the judgements made in New Zealand are made by New Zealand judges and the statutes passed by Parliament are made by MPs elected by the New Zealand people. The same situation occurs in Wales, statute law is passed by parliament made up of Welsh and English, and indeed Scottish, MPs. Courts operate with Welsh and English professionals. If you look at http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/home.law you will read about 'The Law Society of England and Wales.' On page http://www.barcouncil.org.uk/ you will read about the 'Bar Council of England and Wales'. On page http://www.dca.gov.uk/legalsys/lsreform.htm#part3 the 'Report of the Review of the Regulatory Framework for Legal Services in England and Wales December 2004.' On page http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/index.htm 'Her Majesty's Courts Service' for England and Wales. On page http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmstand/d/st030701/am/30701s01.htm a discussion in the House of Lords on 'The Commission for Peace in England and Wales' which covers the magistrates service of England and Wales. In other words the legal professional bodies and the government all refer to the law in England and Wales. It seems only natural therefore that a wikipedia article on the law used in England and Wales equally, by professionals who are members of England and Wales bodies, should and would be titled 'The Law of England and Wales' and not 'English Law.'

I agree that the usage "English law" is hard to defend, although it is difficult to persuade people to replace a short term by a longer one. However it is pretty much universal as a way of describing that law that operates in England and Wales. In other words, it is not only the common term, but the academically accepted term for the law in my jurisdiction. I am called to the Bar of England and Wales, but I practice in English law. What you are suggesting -- and I have a lot of sympathy for it -- is that the title of this article ought to be altered to reflect the way that the term ought to be applied not the way the language is used. I'm not sure wikipedia is the right place or way to do that. The article title reflects usage, right or wrong. Note also, English law is a single system of law with historical roots in England only. An article on "the law of england and wales" would not correctly cover the period before the laws in Wales acts. Those acts extended English law to cover Wales as well. Its also important to understand that the particular bodies that pass statutory laws that cover a jurisdiction are irrelevant. We are all governed by law from many sources, those sources don't define the legal system in operation, which is more fundamental. As I said, England and Wales have the same law, though there may be different particular rules in different places (within either part as well as between the two). The fact that statutes are passed by this or that body has no relevance. Scots law did not become more Scots with the creation of the Scottish Parliament (or for that matter less Scots with the abolition of the Scots Parliament way back when). Francis Davey 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How many states?

I note that the introductory paragraph to the EU Study on the International Law of Succession on page 1 to [[1]] counts six states (abeit that it uses the word jurisdictions), separating Jersey and Guerney citing Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws as their authority. From the POV of Jersey, the Explanatory Notes on the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998, The Probate (General Provision) (Jersey) Regulations 1998 and The Probate (General) (Jersey) Rules, 1998 require a definition of "abroad" to "the Island" (i.e. Jersey). The jurisdictions specified for the purposes of Article 6 (7) have been specified under the Regulations and these are the other parts of the British Isles, namely, England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and Guernsey (i.e. five other states)[2]. I have asked an ex-colleague of mine to photocopy the relevant pages from some real hard-copy books on Conflict for me. As soon as these are to hand, I will cite chapter and verse to support my assertion that there are five or six states within the composite state for constitutional and public international law purposes (depending on how you count the Bailiwicks). Until then, I have left the page with only the one state iderntified because, to date, that is the only on-line verified source I have identified (good to see an American on the ball whereas the Brits will not get themselves on line to confirm this notorious (in the legal sense of the word) piece of information. David91 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Much better. Note, I've all along perfectly been happy to note that there are seven different jurisdictions in the British Isles (counting the Republic of Ireland and Guernsey and Jersey), so your first link shows absolutely nothing that I haven't accepted, and in fact demonstrates that the term 'jurisdiction' is preferred in modern usage (in my view probably because of the confusion this causes). Morwen - Talk 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I should clarify that the Republic is a separate nation state and nothing to do with the Royaume Uni in legal terms. In the Republic, the nationality and domicile are the same. I anticipate it will take about a week for my ex-colleague to get the materials to me. However, I should also explain that as in the word "state", so in the word jurisdiction you have to deal in geographical layers, Thus, for some purposes, you use the word as meta- jurisdiction, i.e. as being co-extensive with supranational groupings of nation states, then as a reference to sovereign nation states, and for Conflict purposes, it is limited and co-extensive with the territorial boundaries of the law unit state. As I commented before, this is a very precise legal topic and it is easy to confuse constitutional with substantive legal issues. And the words "state" and "jurisdiction" are not alternatives but have very different sets of meanings depending on the context so you cannot, with respect, conflate usages. I think that relevant individuals would have a British nationality and a domicile in the Isle of Man or any of the other states depending on the status of the parents and subsequent choice. This is a reference to the substantive laws of each state and has nothing as such to do with any jurisdiction that might or might not be exercised by any of the institutions comprising the legal system of those states. I regret that I am an old pedantic and somewhat curmudgeonly ex-lawyer, and so do not mix well with people from completely different cultural generations. However, my age and inability to immediately lay my hands on a book does not mean that I am ever "flat wrong" about things within the scope of my erstwhile expertise. I therefore hope that you will forgive me if I pursue this until all the references are in place. David91 14:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Reading the reference fully, I note that section 2.5 of Beale is directly relevant to this. It acknowledges that the term "state" is unsatisfactory due to its ambiguity (having previously referred to the entities described as "legal units"), and even considers inventing a new term, but decides that other terms would be worse. Morwen - Talk 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have now included all the information sent to me. I leave it to all of you to decide whether you want to cut and paste the other definitional elements to the separate pages on the U.K., etc. I am sorry that Dicey and Morris are one of the confusing sets of authors that elect to use "country" rather than "state". Just adds to the confusion that non-lawyers feel when approaching this topic. We are all talking about the same thing,merely using different words to do it. So there you have the black letters. I have other things to get on with so you can all have fun deciding whether this is what the law ought to be saying. David91 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

ECHR

I would suggest that it is iumportant to remember that ECHR only forms part of English law insofar as the sources of Enlgish law (precedent; Act of Parliament) allow it to do so. It does not apply directly between private parties as they do not come within s. 6. Acts of parliament have to be interpreted consistently with ECHR if possible. Section 2(1) is not in point because although courts are obliged to take in to account ECHR case law the obligation only kicks in if they are concerned with the scope of a Convention right, which is only relevant if s. 6 or s. 3 applies. I.e. they must take into account ECHR jurispurdence to determine the content of a Convention right but that begs the question as to whether they are concerned with a Convention right that is enforceable in between the parites before the court under the Human Rights Act 1998.

--Lucifer(sc) 15:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Since I am not completely sure whether we agree or not, I will set out my understanding of the matter. The HRA provides that that courts and tribunals must, so far as possible, interpret case law and legislation compatibly with the Convention rights. If it is not possible to interpret primary legislation compatibly, then that legislation remains in force but the court may issue a declaration of incompatibility and Parliament should decide whether to amend the legislation to make it compatible. But the Act also requires "public authorities" to act compatibly with Convention rights, unless primary legislation makes that impossible. Public authorities are not directly defined, but s6(3)(a) includes courts and tribunals, and anyone "certain of whose functions are of a public nature". I accept that the lower courts seem to have been giving a restrictive interpretation to s6(2)(b) because of the the problems of privatisation and conracting out. These decisions misunderstand the purpose of the Act and the Convention. Art 1 binds the UK government to ensure effective remedies for breaches of Convention rights. No public body can therefore evade the operation of Convention rights by delegating any of its functions to a private body (see Van der Musselle v Belgium (1983) 6 EHRR 163 and Costello-Roberts v UK (1993) 19 EHRR 112). If the Lords approach in Aston Cantlow (2003) UKHL 37 were more widely accepted, more bodies would be considered bound but until a UK case gets to Strasbourg, the obligation to comply may not be as widespread as it should be or, indeed, as Parliament intended. Nevertheless, the HRA intended the Convention to apply so long as it did not conflict with primary legislation. I therefore prefer a stronger form of words than the one you propose. Unless you have very clearly reasoned objections, I propose to amend your wording to reflect my understanding. David91 16:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have thought about this overnight and consider this page on English law to be the wrong place for a detailed discussion of these issues. When I have time, I will add the discussion into the pages on the Convention and the HRA itself. My apologies for having set the hare running on the wrong page. David91 04:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "The HRA provides that that courts and tribunals must, so far as possible, interpret ...legislation compatibly with the Convention rights. If it is not possible to interpret primary legislation compatibly, then that legislation remains in force but the court may issue a declaration of incompatibility and Parliament should decide whether to amend the legislation to make it compatible." The position re. case law is unclear and I'll explain further below. Neither Article 1 nor Article 13 (effective remedies) is incopororated. HRA 98 does not fully incorporate ECHR, thus there will be occassions when the result required by ECHR cannot be implemented by HRA 98.

I agree that a state cannot delegate its obligations to private bodies to evade them, but the appropriate respondent remains the state (for having delegated the power and failed to control the private body properly). The obligations remain unenforceable between private parties unless under a proper analysis the psuedo-private body is to be considered a public body because of its powers, functions, etc. States may be liable for their own acts. They may be liable for the acts of bodies that are properly considered to be public bodies even though they have private elements to them (e.g. nationalised industries, privatised prison companies, etc.). They may be liable for failing to control sufficiently the acts of private parties. In each case the issue is what the state has done or failed to do and it is the state that comes under a duty to make reperation for any violation. It does not follow that genuine private parties come under the direct application of the ECHR. The only section of HRA 98 that is relevant to them is s. 3.

I'm not sure if "the HRA intended the Convention to apply so long as it did not conflict with primary legislation". I do not think it can be assumed that HRA 98 courts to disregard the common law whenever it conflicted with ECHR as this would completely undercut the role of s. 6. It would apply the ECHR to private parties through the back door, because private parties have no rights except those which they can enforce through the courts. If the HRA 98 was to have the effect of repealling the common law insofar as incompatible with ECHR then it could have said so. It is extremely likely that a court will develop the common law to be consistent with ECHR but I am not satisfied that s. 6's application to a court requires this. Given that either view point is arguable I would suggest it is inappropriate to state that HRA 98 does or does not require courts to apply the common law consistently with ECHR.

Finally, I concur in David91's comment of 30/3/6. Which on reflection makes what I've said above a bit silly. Perhaps David91 will be good enough to add my rant also to where he sees fit on the HRA page.

--Lucifer(sc) 13:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we do agree on the substance of what constitutes the problem. I will do my best to fairly represent your views. It may be a day or two before I can get round to it. So much to do—so little time to do it. David91 16:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I find the subject-matter of this page to be not about English Law, but rather, a confused discussion about the legal structure of the United Kingdom. I also find it needless to talk about what constitutes a state (which is obviously an area of public international law, and thus, a link should be made to the appropriate page for this area). It is common knowledge that when reference is made to English law, this is simply a lawyers shorthand of saying the Law of England and Wales. I think, the best way to improve this page is to talk about the English Legal System: -The courts -The common law doctrines developed mainly by the courts- the law of obligations (contract and tort law), equity and trusts, etc (this will obviously need to look at the principle of precendent) -The constitutional framework of England and Wales -etc

If people agree, I will improve the page. A. Arikan

I agree with the comments of A Arikan re. the best way to improve the page. --Lucifer(sc) 11:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there are already good (very good in some cases) articles about the courts of England and Wales, and other aspects of the constitution (which is primarily concerned with the United Kingdom, though not entirely). This page can point to them, but shouldn't try to repeat what is said there. The main purpose of this page is to clarify that there is an EW jurisdiction and to sketch out where else a reader might look for that which is more specific. Francis Davey 12:06, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming this page

As A. Arikan points out above, 'English law' is a shorthand of the 'Law of England and Wales'. I therefore propose the title of this article is changed to 'Law of England and Wales' out of respect for Wales and for consistency with the other country Law pages which all begin "Law of...". Comments? Objections? Andeggs 12:25, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Has Andeggs had the opportunity of examining the discussion at the top of the page? I'm afraid I object. I know of no standard work that emplys the phrase "Law of England & Wales" with preference to "English law". Wales was made, rightly or wrongly, part of the English state and had its law repaced by that operating in England (see by way of disctinction what happened with the Act of Union betwixt England and Scotland). Do we know of any Welsh lawyers or law students who object to the term "English law"?--Lucifer(sc) 12:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Lucifer(sc). I perfectly understand that the phrase 'English law' is commonly used and have no objection to it being highlighted as a synonym, perhaps in the lead sentence to the article. But I have two points. Firstly, Welsh users of Wikipedia cannot immediately see that this page has direct relevance for them. Secondly, the naming standards seem to have a growing consensus around the format "Law of..." and so it makes sense for this page to comply. Andeggs 13:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's right. I speak as a barrister at this point. "English law" is a system of law. It has at various times operated in various places. To say "Law of England and Wales" rather misses the point. I speak the English language. My dialect is RP. It would be wrong to call the English language "a language in England and Wales" or something similar. I'm not sure I am making the point very clearly, but a body of law need not coincide with a state or geographical unit. For example in the first Bancoult case an important question was whether the Chagos Islands within the British Indian Ocean Territory were covered by English law or not. What is more, historically English law has covered different areas, at one time it covered much of India, at another it did not cover Wales. Francis Davey 15:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth I concur with Francis Davey and find the Chagos Island point apposite (of course this question arises with any dependent territory of the U.K.) albeit I speak only as a Scots trainee solicitor! I appreciate Andeggs points: could a page be made up saying "Law of England and Wales" that redirects to "English law"? Regarding naming conventions: consistency has its limitations. I don;t think the fact that one generally sees "Law of... [place]" can be equated with it becoming a standard: it is just usually the helpful way of describing the matter usually but not always.--Lucifer(sc) 15:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lord Chief Justice of England changed his title to The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales because he recognised that to ignore Wales is insulting. The 2005 Constitutional Reform Act states:

7 President of the Courts of England and Wales

(1) The Lord Chief Justice holds the office of President of the Courts of England and Wales and is Head of the Judiciary of England and Wales.

If there are Courts and Judiciary of England and Wales there must be a Law of England and Wales. Wales was legally deannexed from England in 1955 when the Queen declared Cardiff the Welsh capital. In 1964 the Welsh Office was set up and since that date the Secretary of State for Wales has been the UK minister responsible for creating Acts of the UK parliament that applied only to Wales. In 1998 the Government of Wales Act gave the Welsh Assembly the power to make Welsh secondary measures. In 2006 the Government of Wales Act created the legal entity 'Her Majesty in Right of Wales' and from May 2007 the Queen will appoint Welsh Ministers who will request specifically Welsh Orders in Council to be called Welsh Measures which will be the first true Welsh Laws for centuries. The 2006 Act also gives the Welsh Assembly the power to call a referendum on gaining primary law making powers similar to those of the Scottish Parliament. In light of all this it is totally unexceptable to leave Wales out of the name of its laws and to defend this by saying well Wales was subordiante to England for centuries so we can ignore recent changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.102.96 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 September 2006

See WP:NAME Policy: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Political correctness does not override policy. There's already a separate article on Welsh law which can deal in detail with specifically Welsh legislation as needed. The term English law is used in other countries such as the US and has a more general meaning than the law of England. ..dave souza, talk

Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd.

Can anyone guide me in this famous case law "Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd.", which decided that an individual and a company are seperate entities. I want the exact judgement given in House Of Lords, and the true name of this case law.

See Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Shimgray | talk | 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

English Law vs. UK law

Question from someone trying to wrap his head around this concept. Is there a separate body of UK law consisting of Acts of Parliament passed that apply to the entire United Kingdom? Or do such acts merely become part of the separate English, Scots, and N. Irish law codes? --Jfruh (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not clear what the answer to your question could mean. The UK Parliament passes acts which have "territorial extent" -- sometimes they apply to E, S or NI independently sometimes to all three or any subset; sometimes to areas outside the UK; sometimes to smaller parts of the UK (such as Wales) and so on. There are three legal systems in play in the UK: the law of England and Wales, the Scots law and Northern Irish law. A "UK law" doesn't come into being as a result of the passing of laws applicable to the whole of the UK (partly because they may have very different legal effects in practice). None of the systems have "codes" in any useful manner. There are a few areas of law which are pan-jurisdictional, Immigration Law being the main example, the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal covers the whole UK. Francis Davey 14:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Given the limited law-making powers of the Welsh Assembley, which are likely to be extended, and Wales-specific legislation emanating from Westminster, I think a decent case can be made that the law in Wales is distinct from that in England, FWIW. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would agree. There has always been legal variation in detail across each jurisdiction (lots of local law in the Metropolis is different), but the key point is that England and Wales have a unified system of courts and binding precedent -- they are a single legal system in that sense. You can be domiciled in England and Wales but not in England or Wales. Francis Davey 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand why so say that, but I think that position will be harder to hold if (when) the Welsh Assembley (when does it become a "parliament"? although Northern Ireland manages with an "assembly" too) gets the ability to pass statutes (rather than statutory instruments). The laws of taxation and succession are the same in Wales as in England, so I am not sure that a concept of "domiciled in Wales" would have many practical effects; at least, not yet. But, for example, a company can be incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 such that its registered office can be in Wales only (if I remember my companies law correctly). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:47, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers, Francis and ALoan. I do really know that there's no such thing as law "code" in UK law, honest -- I just was trying to come up with some shorthand way of saying "the body of Scots/English/N. Irish law as a whole."

Anyway, I'm an American living in a country with a strong federal system, so that's no doubt why I have such a hard time getting my head around this. So, let me use an example to get this straight. The recently passed same-sex civil partnership law applied to the UK as a whole. But court cases related to this law arising in Scotland will be heard by Scots courts under Scots law, in N. Ireland by N. Irish courts under N. Irish law, and in England and Wales by English courts under English law. Do I have that right?

Yes. A good example is that employment law embraces England and Wales and Scotland (its a GB system of law). Laws against discrimination in employment are statutory and apply across GB, but they create a statutory tort (or delict) and that is applied differently in the two jurisdictions. So that aggravated damages are awarded in English and Welsh Employment Tribunals but not in Scottish ones because Scots law has no concept of aggravated damages. Hope that is a good example. It means that I, as an employment practitioner, have to know a bit of Scots law in order to survive in a Scottish employment tribunal. Francis Davey 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

-Francis Davey Are aggravated damages synonymous with punitive damages or do they refer to damages that are greater than they would otherwise be to reflect the particular grevious harm of the tortfeasor's conduct upon the victim? If it is the latter it is arguable that Scotland would compensate this without using the term aggravated damages, just as Scots law does not use the terms special and general damages but would nonetheless award compensation for the harm encompassed within those terms.--Lucifer 12:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Punitive damages are known as exemplary damages and only available in rather restricted circumstances. But, aggravated damages are not compensatory of harm in the way that one might obviously think. If psychiatric injury is occasioned then those are compensated in normal damages (general damages as it happens), and an award can be made for injury to feelings in discrimination cases (which are pretty much the only cases for which aggravated damages are available anyway). The complexity comes because Scots law does not, as you say, separate out damages in this way, whereas an employment tribunal in England and Wales ought to (so authority says). This means that comparing quantum of damages between the two jurisdictions is subtle and not easily done. The Scots approach is more straightforward in my view, but the two approaches are quite different. Francis Davey 14:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As for territorial extent -- can laws only be passed that apply to one or more of the home nations, or can things get more granular? Could, for instance, a law be passed that applied only to London, or only to Yorkshire, or something? --Jfruh (talk) 15:01, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed, but they are normally thought of as local laws and are often passed under a slightly different parliamentary procedure. But there are plenty of examples of laws applying to only some parts of the country. Francis Davey 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to all for interesting clarifications. Regarding the dreaded "tortfeasor" which I don't recall ever having heard of, presumably in Scots law Delict covers roughly the areas that would involve Tort in EnglandandWales. Also, some confusion may arise from thinking of statute as law, when in practice UK (or EEC) statute has to be incorporated into each legal system. Does that sound right? ...dave souza, talk 22:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

A tortfeasor is someone who commits a tort. I don't know if there's an equivalent term in Scotland. Delict does roughly cover the same area as tort.Lucifer 17:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

quality and organisation of this article

take a look at the equivalent article for N.ireland. although very little context is given it is far better organised and professional, and critically to an encyclo, its easy to find and understand the info. anyone want to copy some of its features here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability

This article, as it currently stands, makes almost no effort whatsoever to reliably establish the notability of its topic, as per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS and WP:CITE. This is, quite frankly, astounding, as English law is so central to the history of law worldwide. In fact, it is hard to underestimate the extent of the influence of English law.

The intro is absolutely appalling. It seems like an attempt to grossly downplay the subject, and the whole first half of the article tries to explain what English law is not, rather than what it is!!

I am certain that there are many people out there with profound knowledge of the English legal system. Please could one of you at least write a decent, perhaps 3 paragraph, introduction to the topic, preferably properly cited. And please relegate the long, apologetic bit about "and Wales" to an explanatory subsection - it is not central to grasping the topic.-- Mais oui! 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And setting the topic in a solid historical context early in the piece would be nice too. Sorry to be so grumpy, but I really find the condition of this article to be truly lamentable, after Wikipedia has been up and running for many years now. We ought to at least aim to bring it up to WP:GA status, although WP:FA seems a million miles away at present. -- Mais oui! 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

i think this has been somewhat addressed now in the introduction (not by me)82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

can the name be changed to "The Law of England and Wales"??

this phrase was used from at least 1967 onwards, prior to that there was a law saying any mention of england included wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The title 'English Law' is useful because it was reasserted and given a constituional basis by the 1688 English Declaration of Right. Cacadores (talk) 21:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

English law as a jurisdiction

this section seems to contain some thing of value ie a couple of refs even if not done correctly although some of the stuff there seems meandering and tangential and vague and shouldnt be this high in the article even if in... but i dont want to remove anything without putting better in place, so i haven't done much to it, you are right it needs a thorough reworking. i have tried to quickly remove some blatant innacuracies ie that stating that there are four jurisdictions in the uk england scotland northern ireland and wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

English/British

I think that prehaps we should move it to British Law, and have Welsh, Scottish & NI law, if needed, as a subtopic under British Law, keeping the main focus on English law. microchip08 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me at all. Scottish and English legal systems are quite distinct in many ways, what is the practical use of having a single topic about both? English law is closer to the law of Australia/Canada etc and even the USA than it is to that of Scotland, so if we are grouping that woudl be wrong. Very little law is "British" in any useful sense (Employment law is mostly GB wide and Immigration law UK wide, but those are exceptions, EU law is after all EU wide). There is no separate "Welsh" legal system. There are regulations that apply only to Wales (and now most of these are made by the Welsh Ministers) but that doesn't mean its a separate jurisdiction. Can you explain this odd suggestion? Francis Davey 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. "British law" is a legal nonsense. Besides, an article encompassing the three jurisdictions comprised within the UK already exists here. Ravenseft (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Francis Davey & Ravenseft, removing move template since there is no consensus --Lox (t,c) 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

i can't take that seriously ! removing English law to british!! lets remove it to korean! i agree with you all except the proposer82.27.221.233 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Definitely English common law, even in the USA.125.237.105.102 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

English law vs. Roman law

One of the reasons I suspect that England has had a rough relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is the lack of compatibility between English law and Roman law, the latter of which forms the basis for RC canon law. Many of the debates that led to the English Reformation were seemingly related to this issue, such as the canonical refusal to grant a divorce to the king, which many viewed at the time as an encroachment on the much praised Anglo-Saxon codes of law. Similar issues have also come up with American law, which was long invoked to justify a peculiar religious particularism in the United States with regards to its attitude towards Rome. ADM (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

@ADM Interesting observation, one seemingly, based on reliable sources, should we add the details maybe? Twobells^t@lk 14:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Common law

The 1189 date in this section refers specifically to Glanvill's Tractatus; saying so might be more meaningful than a bare mention of the date (or perhaps not). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Common Law is also affected by the constitutional assertions made in the Declaration of Right, the Queen's Oath and the Magna Carta. These talk about the English individual's rights to assert his 'ancient rights and liberties'. Thus, in practical terms, something that has gone on or repeated for a long time (nominally 11 years) becomes a right which has to be considered along with any applicable statute. Examples are the use of footpaths, fairs, cultural practises or traditional entertainment. It would be nice to see more on this. Cacadores (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

But not 11 years (at least not in England). Its complicated because a long period of use might allow a court to deduce that a right was exercised since time immemorial and therefore was a customary right (eg a right to take coal from the shore) but more recently in a specific and restricted set of rights, 20 years use has allowed a court to presume there was a grant of that right. The difference is important since proof that a right wasn't exercised more than 20 years ago would defeat a claim to a customary right, but not to a presumption of modern grant or to statutory forms of prescription. And its actually more involved than that (thinking about it) since public and private rights are different in various ways. A good example of where it doesn't work is (say) 20 years of driving over a common where that driving would be criminal - no right of way comes into being. Francis Davey (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no such legal doctrine. I firmly believe that only those who have studied English common law at university have the right or ability to discuss it. You are out of your depth, sir.125.237.105.102 (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Common Law and Juries

I was quite surprised to find little or no mention of juries in this article, even though they are a constitutional component of English Law ( e.g. the Magna Carta, Bill of Right). Legal summaries written for students of law often omit mention of the Common Law role of juries but there is no reason for us to do so. Someone might like to begin a paragraph. Meanwhile, the rules on 'binding' decisions or law clearly don't apply to juries, who can assert their rights to act against direction and, in certain cases, make decisions according to their consciences and natural justice rather than statute. I have therefore placed juries in their proper place in the general descriptions. Cacadores (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This wouldn't possibly be because juries sit to determine facts and not law!? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

That's what legislators and judges want you to believe, but their historic role included advising circuit judges on local law. —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Court

This article is quite outdated re: the new Supreme Court. For instance, it still references Law Lords and the House of Lords as the highest appeal court. Can someone change this throughout the article (I'm not qualified enough to do so with confidence of retaining accuracy).

References

I am uncertain whether the following issue is covered and therefore brought to attention by the Refimprove template. References numbered 1, 2 and 4 are all invalid links that lead to non existant web pages. Jake (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the importance of this subject the fact there are no references is amazing. Some of what should be references are shown as notes. If nobody objects I will change them to references where appropriate.CSDarrow (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

From what date does a case law take effect?

From which date does a case law take effect? Is it from the day of the judgment, or from the date the case was filed, or from some other date? 86.183.80.209 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some exceptions to the general principle, but a judgment that decides a question of law is treated (in theory at least) as declaring what the law is, and therefore what the law always was. As a result almost all such judgments take effect retrospectively. While judges in English courts do talk about "changing" or "reforming" the law, that almost never affects the basic principle of retrospective effect. Francis Davey (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. So if you had a case found against you 20 years ago in a lower court but did not appeal, whereas someone 20 years later in a similar case appealed to the highest court and won, then there is a procedure to reverse the judgment from 20 years ago? 86.180.53.189 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In general, no. But its a complicated "it depends" kind of question. Appeals almost invariably have time limits. If you are out of time you cannot appeal, however good your case. However there are very often powers for the appeal court involved to extend the time on various grounds. It is sometimes possible to have even quite short time limits extend over very long periods of years. The subject matter is quite important, in English law there are mechanisms to have serious criminal convictions overturned a very long time after the conviction, but a very minor civil judgment against an individual would be treated as a much less serious matter. So normally if you didn't appeal, then you are almost certainly out of time and out of luck. Really its no different from having an incorrect decision made by a court - you have to appeal within a certain time. Francis Davey (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

First ethnic & minority rights in England

When was the first ethnic & minority rights (culture education political language rights) declared in England? Don't confuse it with immigration and citizenship laws/acts! Can you write me? Many Thanks! mail: stears333@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Murder

I've added a "citation needed" tag to the following:

For example, there is no statute making murder illegal. It is a common law crime - so although there is no written Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today, but had previously allowed the death penalty.

In addition it could use a rewrite by whoever finds a source for the claim. At present it seems to imply that the repeal of the death penalty for murder was statute law replacing common law, but that's in contradiction with Offences against the Person Act 1861#Homicide. 95.19.216.78 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The death penalty for murder pre-existed the Homicide Act (and goes way back). So there's no contradiction. The statement is entirely correct in substance (though one would not normally talk about the "constitutional authority of the courts"). The only difficulty is that the death penalty for murder may pre-exist the court system as we know it. Francis Davey (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Under common law if your cause harm to anyone then you will be judged accordingly in a court representative to your peers though here in england the those appointed legally need to rovide a stamped declaration by the queen allowing them to do so. Many do not realise this and therfore become subject to the corporation and its statutes.

I have no idea what this paragraph even means, but the "common law" says no such thing. Such an extraordinary claim might require some evidence. Francis Davey (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement is true, the crime of murder in both England/Wales and Scotland is based on precedent intepretations of Common Law by higher courts. I am guessing the case law is reported in The Law Reports and The Weekly Law Reports. The best citaion I have found is by a Law Professor at Leeds, UK Law Online http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htm CSDarrow (talk) 20:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The usual definition is that of Coke (who was long before either the Law Reports or the Weekly Law Reports) and he was merely summarising what had long been understood. I don't know of any coherent legal system that doesn't treat murder as an offence. Certainly murder was a crime when the Normans arrived. The boundaries of that understanding have been elaborated by the courts and also altered by statute (eg the year and a day principle). Francis Davey (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure the case law for murder predates the Law Reports or the Weekly Law Reports by probably centuries (guessing in the Year Book, Coke was 1600's), though more recent case law refining its definition murder will be contained in them. I think the point here though is Parliament has had no need to specifically define murder as a crime as Common Law predates its by centuries. Unlike the USA which has a federal statute prohibiting it. Saying there is no statute for murder in England is a little bit cute but really the hammers home the idea of Common Law being set by the higher courts. And technically is true.

I guess I am asking does anyone have a better reference than http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/sls.htmCSDarrow (talk) 12:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. NukeofEarl (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

---

I think the article Misuse of private information in English law should be merged with this article. Please give your view here. aηsuмaη ^༽Ϟ 14:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No, that doesn't sound the right place to put it (its barely a stub at the moment). Its really too specific to go here - maybe it could be expanded or merged into breach of privacy or breach of confidence or somewhere like that. Francis Davey (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

No. (Its already covered by tort and contract.) And that wiki article is innacurate anyway and should be removed or merged with one of the two mentioned above. --phazakerley (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

review requested; it's easy probably

Please take a look at Costs (let such link load fully before starting to navigate, because that loading will jump you to the subsection at issue). The subsection at issue has several '[confirm]' tags, and your quick review could be very helpful. If a given assertion seems correct then you could just delete the '[confirm]' tag, and add no supporting source/footnote. Bo99 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed edits to the lede on the common law

I removed a chunk of material from the lede which included the theory that Parliament has no authority to change the common law and also some very misleading remarks about the role played by juries in the development of English law (given that jury trial is extremely rare in civil justice, it would be hard to believe that juries could have any real influence over its development). The material represented an extreme view of law that is (i) historically incorrect and misunderstands the role of common law in the past (ii) not an accurate reflection of how English law actually behaves even if it is what the author would like to be true. Francis Davey (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

The difference between Common law and civil law is said to be that there has been "no major codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive". That is not entirely correct. Common law is actually so defined as being distinct from ecclesiastical law, not civil law. Civil law was not part of the English system.125.237.105.102 (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Wales, Wales Wales?

What on earth is going on? Why has Wales taken over the lede and opening paragraphs of English law? Twobells^t@lk 13:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Seemingly because of these edits, which no-one picked up at the time. Some restoration work needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yup, I've moved all the edits out of the lede where they had taken over the article and given the Welsh entries their own prominent section within the article, however, I am unsure was to whether I have given the section too much prominence seeing as the article is on English common law, regards. Twobells^t@lk 14:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's important to recognise that "English" common law is the system that also applies in Wales, so it is appropriate to give it some weight, to resolve any confusion among readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The Wales question

There is a danger that, anyone who does not know about this topic, would read this article and assume that Wales is subject to the law made in and by England. When in reality, the law is English and Welsh and is made in and by both equally and has been since 1536. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.128.195 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Please suggest specific changes to the wording that you would like to see, with reliable sources as necessary. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

unsourced OR/SYN

There is nothing in this article that supports "Other less crucial areas of English law include martial law and ecclesiastical law".[3] Qexigator (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well adding "martial law" is incorrect because it refers to , something that hasn’t happened in England since 1648. I suspect what is being referred to is military justice, which is a different issue. Green Giant (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

This first line of the lead reads "English law is the common law legal system governing England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law. This is a truism and no-one bothers to call it original research. It is also a truism that there are two other English procedures/systems as I have (twice) indicated. Canon law is no longer mainstream, but in the 19th century it held sway over divorce and nullity of marriage. It is also true that "imposing military rule in a country"is one meaning of "martial law"; but its secondary meaning of "martial law" (along with its tribunals which are "courts martial") is synonymous with military law. (I hesitate to call it "military justice"). Note, by the way, that a Wikilink is NOT necessarily a source, but is scope for further information. I will amend the wording, but to continue to deny that canon law and military law is part of English law is to be obtuse.Arrivisto (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The lead should be written as a summary or abstract of the main content, and that content should be duly sourced. There is no problem in stating the principal division of the English legal system (as most other modern legal systems) as of criminal and civil. "Mainstream" is unclear. These are certainly not recognised or written about as "divisions of English law". There is nothing in the article to explain what is meant. The note is not helpfully informative. Please check more thoroughly the leading and specialist standard textbooks. What is the jurisdiction today of any ecclesiastical court in England, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the law courts generally, or any military court, other than in respect of the Church of England or in respect of the armed services of the Crown? They are comparable with municipal byelaws or the law of town planning. Qexigator (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't accept all your criticisms, butI have shifted the text to which you object to "See Also". I am aware of the issues of Original Research and Proper Sourcing, thanks; but note that before I added several sources this rather long article had a mere five sources, yet no editors seemed perturbed by this startling lack of citations!Arrivisto (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: Thank you for the changes to the lead. With the query above, you appear to be confusing two overlapping but distinct concepts. Ordinarily, military law is for military personnel, wartime situations, civilians intruding on bases etc. Martial law is a political change by which the civilian population is subjugated to military rule. What I said above was incorrect in that it has not happened since 1648, but there have been martial-type laws such as during WWII. I don’t agree with including these two (military and church) in a reference until it is also clarified in the lead that there is more to it than just a criminal/civil divide. There is a good reason that a qualifying law degree requires modules in seven areas (administrative/public, criminal, contract, tort, land/property, EU, and equity). It is unclear why military and ecclesiastical law are more important than those seven. Green Giant (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Q. "A qualifying law degree requires modules in seven areas (administrative/public, criminal, contract, tort, land/property, EU, and equity). It is unclear why military and ecclesiastical law are more important than those seven". A. You are correct; they are less important and are not part of any LLB syllabus as they have no relevance. But they still exist as divisions of English law. Note however, that of the LLB seven core subject areas, criminal is criminal, and all the rest are civil (albeit that EU law is a special case). Arrivisto (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Too much "white space"

The paragraph entitled "The main subject areas of English law" (previously "Subjects and links") has a lot of white space. Could this stuff be put into a more compact (and readable) table? Arrivisto (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: Those links could go into the See also section and formatted into two columns. Green Giant (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: "See also" is already pretty full, but two columns under the existing heading might be ideal. Could you put that into effect, please? Arrivisto (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Arrivisto: I've trimmed it by removing the unnecessary subheadings and put it into three columns. If you feel two columns works better, change the number in the {{div col}} at the start of the section. Green Giant (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Much better; many thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Criminal law & civil law

The revert stated: "writ is procedure not remedy, decree not per link, repudiation is not a remedy as such, rescission is an equitable remedy). Up to a point, Lord Copper!

A remedy is anything that a party can get from the law, whether it is self-help or available only from a court. A court will not issue a writ (for instance, a warrant for the arrest of ships) unless a party seeks one; that being so, it is not incorrect to call a writ a remedy, albeit effected by a written procedure). Repudiation is a common law self-help remedy, and rescission is (normally) its equitable equivalent (although there are many decisions where the court has used the term "rescission" as synomous with repudiation). Writs are generally considered to have come from the King's Bench, so have a common law origin, even if they operate as equitable relief. Arrivisto (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is not explained to readers and is unsupported OR/SYN. Please check with standard leading textbooks. "Writs are generally considered to have come from the King's Bench, so have a common law origin, even if they operate as equitable relief" is confusing and makes no sense here. It is inexact in terminolgy and detail and amounts to misinformation. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

In common parlance, a "writ" is shorthand for "a High Court Writ", but because writs are available only at the discretion of the court they operate as equitable relief. Civil law is indeed wider in scope: an LLB student studies only one crime subject (criminal law) and a dozen or so civil law subjects, and most legal work is non-criminal; so I shall restore that statement. I cannot see how it is OR to state that repudiation and rescission are remedies, when there are very many sources on WP that say so. "Account of profits" like "unjust enrichment" is important, but arguably a minority interest in a general article such as this, but I'll let sleeping dogs lie. Arrivisto (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that the article is for the information of general readers, not academic law students with restricted breadth or depth of syllabus or practical knowledge, Account of profits vividly illustrates for both sorts of reader how equitable remedies contrast with the usual, and almost invariable, common law remedy for damages, and, as an example, is historically and practically informative. For writs of summons see Rules of the Supreme Court, as applied after the merger of the courts of common law and of equity (from 1883) superseded by Civil Procedure Rules (from 1999); and see "High Court procedures".[4] Qexigator (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

+ You may recall that the Rules of the Supreme Court (Writ and Appearance) 1979 (Statutory Instrument 1979, No. 1716) was discussed in House of Lords in 1980,[5] with reference to a revised wording in the form of a writ of summons: "... a writ is the usual way in the High Court of commencing a civil action in which a plaintiff claims his rights and remedies at law against a defendant. Based upon an old and valuable tradition that the subject looks to the Sovereign as the fountain of justice to see that his cause is attended to and that the dispensation of justice in this land is not dependent upon the transient Government of the day, or indeed upon some Ministry of Justice, and as a constant reminder of that, and whatever be the wording adopted for good or ill elsewhere in our courts or tribunals, the present High Court writ is addressed to a defendant with the words: Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". It continues with a command to the defendant to enter an appearance to the suit of the plaintiff. That merely means completing a form and is now, by this Statutory Instrument, very sensibly to be dealt with by a form of acknowledgement of service. The writ then further tells the defendant what he must do if he [line 1552] wishes to defend the action; what may happen to him in default; and how to act if he wishes to admit a liquidated claim. ...the deliberate removal of the Royal Command, that the defendant, should under the amendments elsewhere contained in this Instrument, acknowledge service of the writ and deal with the plaintiff's claim whether by admission or denial, or suffer the effects of default by judgment being entered against him. What are the arguments for the removal of this traditional and symbolic wording?" Qexigator (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I am at loss to understand what message the previous screed is meant to convey; perhaps there was no time to be brief? Nor is any meaning apparent in: "trim verbiage and rmv insufficient details of another category, and IF more fully explained here would be UNDUE. Maybe link in "See also" Verbiage? Not so! And is it helpful to call a remedy "actionable"; surely it is the cause of action or claim that is actionable, not the remedy? Arrivisto (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

wider in scope = verbiage. The above quotation from Hansard usefully characterises the significance of the writ of summons before and after the merger of the jurisdictions in the Supreme Court before this was obscured by the change made in the prescribed form. "Actionable": good point. Qexigator (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

The UK jurisdictions - Statutory definitions - prune?

I think this paragraph - "The UK jurisdictions - Statutory definitions" - is overlong for this general page, given the cover elsewhere, such as British Islands. It seems a pruning is in order! Arrivisto (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I've now pruned this, and shifted the full text to a new main page. Arrivisto (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

The meaning of meaning

A sentence in the sub-paragraph "Overseas influences" reads:"The common law inherited from England has in differing ways, but in that context, "common law" is deemed a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which includes equity and admiralty law, but has always been "unintelligible without reference to statute". ". I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Could someone perhaps make this a bit clearer? Arrivisto (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

It now reads: "In this context, "common law" has been described as a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which includes equity and admiralty law, and which has always been "unintelligible without reference to statute"". Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot see what the phrase "and which has always been 'unintelligible without reference to statute'" means; the only sense I can make of it that it is incorrect! Arrivisto (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In the context of "Courts of final appeal", "After Britain's colonial period", when "jurisdictions that had inherited and adopted England's common law developed their courts of final appeal in differing ways": that makes good sense does it not, per the source cited, in respect of countries such as Australia and Zambia? And see that ref.'s source (Mark Leeming), added to External links. Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

"English" law is just Norman law

From the article (aside from the funny, bourgeois liberal blurb to make it seem "diverse" by claiming English law is rooted in Islamic law.... LMFAO) we do not get a clear sense of who "English law" was set up to serve and the utility for its creation. "English law" was set up by the criminal Norman invaders as an afterthought to 1066 to keep their greasy little claws in control of land that they stole from other people... that is it. That is the oh so noble and profound "English" law. Then it spread into Wales and Ireland (so-called "Irish" law is "English" law which is Norman law) as the plunderers sought more land to steal and more races to subjugate. There is no continuity between early Anglo-Saxon law and "English"-Norman law, just as there is no continuity between "Irish"-Norman law and the Brehon laws of the Gaels. We need to name the Norman loud and clear in the introduction and especially the land ownership issue, especially as these legal arrangements are still in place to this day. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Lead section inadequate

The lead section is used in the portal for English law as the introduction. It should summarise the entire article in up to four substantial paragraphs. · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The current lead neatly and sufficiently summarises the article's content. What do you say is missing? Qexigator (talk) 12:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Qexigator: What's the reason for removing the short description in the lead? It's used primarily for mobile readers to help disambiguate search results. For desktop readers, it's usually invisible (unless you enable the gadget).

Also regarding the length (or lack thereof) of the lead, MOS:LEADLENGTH states The length of the lead should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. (emphasis mine), which would mean at least a paragraph to adequately describe the topic. I realise that brevity is the soul of wit, but what we currently have is better suited as the aforementioned short description than a real article lead. — AfroThundr ^{(u · t · c)} 13:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Given my comment above, I do not see the problem, and consider the revision of [6] an improvement, in the interest of accuracy and simplicity and avoiding verbosity, and having regard to the inline links. Do you propose adding to the lead a short summary of the section "Principal elements of English law" in the current version? At most it would consist of no more than the first two sentences of that section, but then that would need to be restated in the Section where it now appears. The article as a whole is "a short, but useful "summary of the topic" but to be "complete" would need very much more text, for which the links are given to "main articles" and in the lists in "Main subject areas" and "See also". Qexigator (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Caption for Royal Courts of Justice

The caption states that the Royal Courts of Justice are on The Strand when the road is simply Strand. I know both are commonly accepted but as the road is simply Strand it seems prudent to have it correct. Tomtiger11 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)