The Discoverability of Mistakes of Law

S. Beswick
{"title":"The Discoverability of Mistakes of Law","authors":"S. Beswick","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3220062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The “mistake of law” category of unjust enrichment might be a more obscure cause of action were it not for s.32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980. That provision postpones the limitation period in cases of “mistake”. Recent landmark judgments have interpreted s.32(1)(c) to extend time for bringing actions in mistake of law until there has been an authoritative judicial pronouncement on the point of law in issue. This understanding of discoverability is arbitrary, jurisprudentially strained and internally inconsistent. It gives rise to serious problems in doctrine and policy. The courts should revisit their jurisprudence and consider the more coherent understandings of the discoverability principle that others have previously advanced.","PeriodicalId":266956,"journal":{"name":"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3220062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The “mistake of law” category of unjust enrichment might be a more obscure cause of action were it not for s.32(1)(c) of the Limitation Act 1980. That provision postpones the limitation period in cases of “mistake”. Recent landmark judgments have interpreted s.32(1)(c) to extend time for bringing actions in mistake of law until there has been an authoritative judicial pronouncement on the point of law in issue. This understanding of discoverability is arbitrary, jurisprudentially strained and internally inconsistent. It gives rise to serious problems in doctrine and policy. The courts should revisit their jurisprudence and consider the more coherent understandings of the discoverability principle that others have previously advanced.
法律错误的可发现性
如果没有1980年《诉讼时效法》第32(1)(c)条,不当得利的“法律错误”类别可能是一个更模糊的诉因。这项规定在发生“错误”的情况下推迟时效期。最近具有里程碑意义的判决将第32(1)(c)条解释为延长因法律错误提起诉讼的时间,直到对所涉法律问题有权威的司法声明为止。这种对可发现性的理解是武断的,法理上的紧张和内部的不一致。它引起了严重的理论和政策问题。法院应重新审视其判例,并考虑其他人先前提出的对可发现性原则的更连贯的理解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信