This paper examines the question of reparation for non-recent institutional child sexual abuse in England and Wales and Australia in the light of independent inquiries which reported in 2022 (England and Wales) and 2017 (Australia). Both inquiries recommended the introduction of state-based redress schemes that would exist alongside private law. While the new UK government considers how to proceed, Australia has established a national redress scheme, there have been changes to private law and new legislation reforming tort law and removing procedural obstacles such as limitation. In evaluating the Australian reforms and the case for change in English law, this paper examines the different roles state-based redress and private law compensation play in responding to the harm suffered by victims and survivors of sexual abuse. It argues that there are urgent lessons that the UK government should learn from the Australian experience in establishing a redress scheme and that while legislative change to substantive private law has proven less than successfull in Australia, legislation on limitation periods and suing unincorporated associations has assisted plaintiffs. Finally there are lessons that private law can learn from state-based redress schemes in seeking to provide remedies that meet the distinctive needs of victims and survivors of child sexual abuse.

The law of tort (or extra or non-contractual liability) has been criticised for being imprecise and lacking coherence. Legal systems have sought to systemise its rules in a number of ways. While civil law systems generally place tort law in a civil code, common law systems have favoured case-law development supported by limited statutory intervention consolidating existing legal rules. In both systems, case law plays a significant role in maintaining the flexibility and adaptability of the law. This article will examine, comparatively, different means of systemising the law of tort, contrasting civil law codification (taking the example of recent French proposals to update the tort provisions of the Code civil) with common law statutory consolidation and case-law intervention (using examples taken from English and Australian law). In examining the degree to which these formal means of systemisation are capable of improving the accessibility, intelligibility, clarity and predictability of the law of tort, it will also address the role played by informal sources, be they ambitious restatements of law or other means. It will be argued that given the nature of tort law, at best, any form of systemisation (be it formal or informal) can only seek to minimise any lack of precision and coherence. However, as this comparative study shows, further steps are needed, both in updating outdated codal provisions and rethinking the type of legal scholarship that might best assist the courts.

This paper will argue that, in the light of recent case law in the UK and Australia, a new approach is needed when dealing with claims for vicarious liability and non-delegable duties in the law of tort. It will submit that lessons can be learnt from a comparative study of these jurisdictions, notably by reflecting on the courts’ treatment of claims of institutional liability for child sexual abuse. In parallel to decisions of their highest courts, public enquiries in Australia and England and Wales, established to report on historic child sexual abuse and how to engage in best practice, are now reporting their findings which include proposals for victim reparation: see Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Australia, 2017) including its Redress and Civil Litigation Report (2015); Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (Interim report, England and Wales, 2018). The Australian reports suggest reforms not only to state practice, but also to private law. This article will critically examine the operation of vicarious liability and non-delegable duties in England and Wales and Australia and proposals for statutory intervention. It will submit that a more cautious incremental approach is needed to control the ever-expanding doctrine of vicarious liability in UK law and to develop more fully its more restrictive Australian counterpart.

The movement towards common principles of European contract law has been described as inevitable. In the words of one of its foremost proponents, ‘it is a historic law that this unification is going to happen sooner or later’. It has been difficult to ignore in recent years the volume of work discussing developments in this area of law. One might note, in particular, the Private Law in European Context series published by Kluwer Law International and the Cambridge University Press Common Core of European Private Law project. Further, the publication of Communications by the EC Commission in 2001, 2003 and 2004 has served to promote an ongoing discussion on the nature and quality of the acquis communautaire and the ‘opportuneness’ of any form of non-sector-specific instrument in the area of European contract law. Such intervention, it has been said, forms ‘the riggings of a ship which is about to set sail’.

The Consumer Rights Act 2015 seeks to consolidate in one place key consumer rights covering contracts for goods, services and digital content, and the law relating to unfair terms in consumer contracts. These are areas where there has been considerable activity at both a national and an EU level. In particular, the Consumer Sales Directive 99/44/EC, the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive 93/13/EEC and the Consumer Rights Directive 2011/83/EU have all made significant changes to Member State law, promoting the idea of the ‘informed consumer’, able to assert his or her rights in entering consumer contracts. This paper will examine the extent to which the Act promotes the objectives of these Directives and the implications of the result of the June 2016 referendum that the UK should leave the EU. Does the Consumer Rights Act 2015 represent a valuable consolidation of EU and UK consumer policy, or are EU rights being absorbed into a distinctive national framework of consumer rights?

This article examines the extent to which EU and European human rights law, following the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, have changed the manner in which English courts use comparative law in the private law field. Despite legislative intervention rendering EU law part of the national legal system and requiring the courts ‘to take into account’ the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, there remains evidence that private law courts retain a preference for comparisons within the common law world. This article will examine, with reference to a number of recent empirical studies, the reasons for this position and what this signifies in terms of future comparative law reasoning.