The Rule of Law Case Against Inconsistency and in Favour of Mandatory Civil Legal Process.
The traditional private, bipolar model of civil litigation has come under strain in a world of mass production and even mass law. The result is that the courts are deciding the same questions of fact or law in multiple proceedings. Multiplicity causes waste and vexation, creates a risk of inconsiste...
| Publicado en: | Oxford Journal of Legal Studies Vol. 39; no. 4; pp. 725 - 751 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Oxford University Press / USA
Winter2019
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=140097147&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 140097147 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 01436503 BJ4 jtl: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies issn: 01436503 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Winter2019 vid: 39 iid: 4 pid: 622 pub: Oxford University Press / USA artinfo: ui: 140097147 10.1093/ojls/gqz015 ppf: 725 ppct: 26 formats: fmt: – @attributes: type: T – @attributes: type: P size: 205KB tig: atl: The Rule of Law Case Against Inconsistency and in Favour of Mandatory Civil Legal Process. aug: au: Higgins, Andrew Allan affil: Associate Professor of Civil Procedure, Faculty of Law and Mansfield College, University of Oxford su: Rule of law Inconsistent verdicts Class actions False imprisonment Legal process theory sug: subj: Rule of law Inconsistent verdicts Class actions False imprisonment Legal process theory keyword: abuse of process autonomy class actions inconsistent judgments multiplicity of proceedings rule of law ab: The traditional private, bipolar model of civil litigation has come under strain in a world of mass production and even mass law. The result is that the courts are deciding the same questions of fact or law in multiple proceedings. Multiplicity causes waste and vexation, creates a risk of inconsistent outcomes and raises concerns about adequacy of representation where a court creates a precedent that will affect the rights of others not before the court. This article argues that multiplicity, and the risk of inconsistency that goes with it, is antithetical to legal process using theoretical analysis, including Rawls's tripartite classification of procedural justice concepts, and doctrinal analysis of the rules of procedure and evidence. It concludes by examining different methods for avoiding inconsistency and argues for the adoption of mandatory legal process for all persons wishing to assert claims or defences that give rise to common questions. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: © 2019 Oxford University Press. item: Oxford Journal of Legal Studies holder: Oxford University Press / USA dt: @attributes: year: 2019 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|