This paper draws attention to the approaches taken by the courts over time in interpreting a variety of legal documents both Statutory and Commercial. It describes perennial problems and developing approaches and solutions. It seeks to illustrate the legal complexities involved in the interpretation process. 

It specifically examines long established principles and maxims such as the doctrine in Heydon’s Case, the Always speaking principle and the Moorcock Doctrine. Very importantly, it discusses the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in the Investors Compensation Scheme Case and the extent to which the approach of textualism has been replaced by one of contextualism. Attention is drawn to the subsequent cases which appear to question or modify the Investor’s Compensation Case approach as well as to the continuing dynamic nature of the subject.

Purchase the full article here

Jamaica is one in a growing number of territories in the Commonwealth Caribbean that have enacted new insolvency laws in a bid to modernise their  corporate and personal insolvency law regimes. Since 2017, there has been a  trickle of first instance written judgments by Jamaica’s Supreme Court which have begun to animate the Insolvency Act, 2014, which came into effect in 2015. Two of these judgments concern misuse of the insolvency process. The respective courts, having found an abuse of process by the relevant debtors, resorted to exceptional remedies under the legislation – exempting a creditor from the moratorium arising where a debtor has recourse to the rescue procedure, and annulling a bankruptcy.

This article examines these judgments in the context of the broader purposes and policies informing modern insolvency law. It argues that while rules of law may require that courts take into account the debtor’s conduct in determining misuse of the insolvency process, judicial decisions on this issue are likely to be enriched where courts foreground the financial condition of the debtor and infuse their decision-making with considerations regarding the main objectives of the new legislation.

Purchase the full article here

Should the prosecution be permitted to adduce evidence that the complainant in a sexual case made a report to several persons when it is known that one or other of these persons is not available to testify? What is the evidential value of such testimony? How can the defence effectively test such evidence? What direction should be given to the jury? Will such evidence advance or hamper the cause of justice or the development of the law of evidence? These questions arise directly out of the decision of the Privy Council.

Purchase the full article here

The article examines the potential impact of the decision of the House of Lords in Moore Stephens (a firm) v. Stone Rolls (In Liquidation) [2009] UKHL 39 on the development of commercial fraud law in the Commonwealth Caribbean and concludes that Moore Stephens was wrongly decided and should not be followed by Commonwealth Caribbean courts. The article begins from the premise that Caribbean courts are not hidebound to stick slavishly to the English common law as declared by the House of Lords. The article examines the jurisprudence in Commonwealth countries that have refused to apply Moore Stephens or have found creative ways to distinguish the decision to arrive at a just result which ultimately provides the victims of fraud with a remedy. It concludes that Caribbean courts should take that approach and highlights some early signs in the Caribbean where that is indeed happening.

Purchase the full article here