Month: January 2016

‘As the courts continue to flirt with the idea of the remedial constructive trust, this lecture will examine the arguments that have been made for and against its recognition in English law.

The principal argument offered in its favour is that the flexibility it gives to courts allows them to reach better, more just results.

Those who have argued against it have tended to concede this and have focused instead on the uncertainty it would bring and on the legitimacy of courts assuming such a power to reallocate property.

I shall argue that this concession is a mistake.

The justice advantage of the remedial constructive trust is seen to lie in the greater discretion that it gives to courts: freed from the constraints of binding rules, courts are better positioned to fashion a remedy to the circumstances of the cases, reaching the result which is, all things considered, best.

But the relationship between rules and discretion is not always one of opposition and, where discretion is to be meaningfully opposed to rule-based decision-making, the upshot is not more justice but less.

If the remedial constructive trust really is discretionary in a way that ordinary institutional constructive trusts are not, we have every reason to reject it.

It turns out, however, that this is not the sort of discretion that those jurisdictions which have adopted expressly ‘remedial’ constructive trusts have embraced; indeed it’s one they have repeatedly rejected.

Such differences as there are between English law and the law of these jurisdictions are found in the substantive rules which govern the operation of constructive trusts.

So the question English law faces is not whether we should recognise some ‘new model’ of constructive trust, but rather the more familiar inquiry into what rules are best.

In addressing this question, the idea of the ‘remedial’ constructive trust is only an unnecessary distraction.’

This event is accredited with 1 CPD hour with the SRA and BSB

Date: 4th February 2016, 6.00-7.00pm

Location: UCL Gustave Tuck Lecture Theatre, Wilkins Building, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT

Charge: Free, registration required

More information can be found here.

‘Drawing on a mix of personal experience and professional insight, speakers from the City, the bar and the bench will discuss contemporary barriers to the advancement of LGBT+ people in the legal profession and how those barriers may be overcome.’

Date: 2nd February 2016, 6.30-8.00pm

Location: Hong Kong Theatre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Clement House, London WC2A 2AE

Charge: Free

More information can be found here.

‘The law plays a crucial part in the creation, proliferation, and distribution of wealth. Through private law institutions such as contract and property, but also through the criminal law (consider the numerous offences pertaining to wealth, such theft, fraud, money laundering) the law creates and regulates the categories making possible the exclusive relations between us and the world. In doing so the law also, at least indirectly, shapes social relations.

Questions of wealth creation and distribution have become particularly urgent since the beginning of the ongoing financial crisis. This also puts to the question the way in which law regulates wealth. Are corporations and financial markets sufficiently regulated? Is it even possible to regulate them by law? What protection does the law offer to the worse-off and especially those who financially depend on creditors? What role can the criminal law play in hindering aggressive corporate conduct especially in conditions of globalisation?’

Date: 2nd March 2016, 6.30-8.00pm

Location: Hong Kong Theatre, London School of Economics and Political Science, Clement House, London WC2A 2AE

Charge: Free

More information can be found here.