David Lewis
May 2003
A paper based on the commended entry in the Hudson Prize Competition 2002
The author comments that judges sometimes reach unexpected decisions, declaring the law to be different from what most lawyers, and their clients, previously thought it to be. He looks in particular at three Court of Appeal decisions handed down within a six-month period in 1994: Trafalgar House v General Surety and Guarantee, Perar v General Surety and Guarantee and Crown Estate v Mowlem. The purpose of the paper, David Lewis explains, is to encourage judges to adhere to current consensus by proposing sound legal reasons why they should do so, and to suggest how judges might depart from a legally unsound consensus in a way which protects the parities to existing contracts.
Trafalgar House and the temporary demise of the conditional bond - Perar and the innocent insolvent - Crown Estate and the excessively final certificate - The hazards of construction - Canons of construction - esolving the paradox.
The author: David Lewis is a practising solicitor and the principal of Lawbuild, solicitors, London.
Text 11 pages.
PDF file size: 82k