Professor of Law and Legal History
Joshua Getzler was appointed in 1993. In his modern legal research he is working on the duties of investment agents in financial markets, on the legal and economic structure of debt and equity, on the tortious and contractual liability of entities, and on theories of co-ownership and fiduciary duty. In his historical research he is working on the relationships of public finance and private banking and investment, and the evolution of trust, corporate and charitable forms, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He is also studying the role of the lord chancellors in law and politics before the Great Reform Act, from Macclesfield and King through to Hardwicke and Eldon. His first degrees in law and history were taken at the Australian National University in Canberra, and his doctorate in Oxford, as a member of Balliol and Nuffield Colleges. He has taught and researched at the Australian National University, the Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, the University of Chicago, and most recently at the University of Pennsylvania as Bok Visiting International Professor of Law in 2012. He maintains links to Australia as Conjoint Professor of Law at the University of New South Wales.
Brian Simpson's critique of Herbert Hart's The Concept of Law confronts abstract attempts to analyse law using the tools of linguistic philosophy with Simpson's preferred approach of dense historical narrative which strives to reconstruct the mentalities of past legal actors. Simpson's approach can be seen as a species of 'thick description' that ultimately shares much with the intellectual world of linguistic philosophy that he assails. Simpson's quarrel with Hart can thus be redrawn as a quarrel between two variant forms of British empiricism; Simpson's purposes are not so radically different to Hart's as he claims. The main difference is that Simpson relies on a shared (and often parodic) understanding with his audience of the nuances of common-law culture, whilst Hart is more interested in how linguistic usage common to contemporary lawyers can reveal general qualities of law. These are not rival enterprises.
J S Getzler, '\'As If\'. Accountability and Counterfactual Trust' (2011) 91 Boston University Law Review 931 [...]
Law sustains trust in fiduciaries not primarily by ordering redress of losses caused by a falling below fiduciary standards, but rather by requiring that the fiduciary be induced to act as if those standards were met. Wherever possible, the fiduciary is estopped from acting in reliance on the breach, and instead is asked to cure the breach by positive performance of duty. As a fiduciary, you do not keep the illegal profit and proffer compensation for any ensuing loss; rather, you hold the profit for the beneficiary as you always should have done, with loss measures calculated to level any shortfall. This "as if" trusting, enforced by law, solves the conundrum that complete trust properly requires no enforcement, but is self-enforcing, or better, self-fulfilling. This thesis is explored and justified through an examination of the history of accountability and allied modern doctrines controlling fiduciaries who breach their trust.
J S Getzler, 'Richard Epstein, Strict Liability, and the History of Torts' (2010) 3 Journal of Tort Law #3 [...]
Epstein's strict liability model of tort law, first stated in 1973, relied on arguments derived from the history of the common law, starting with the late medieval period and extending into the nineteenth century. Since that seminal article was published, legal historical scholarship has deepened our understanding of earlier tort law and brought many new sources to bear, and it has also uncovered a pervasive if quiet Romanistic influence on doctrinal development. None of this new work overturns Epstein's historical intuitions, and his strict liability theory can continue to claim support in the practices of the older common law.
J S Getzler, 'Fiduciary investment in the shadow of financial crisis: Was Lord Eldon right?' (2009) 3 Journal of Equity 219 [...]
The structure of trust duties yielding a duty to invest with due care derives from the interaction of the power to manage trust assets as a fiduciary owner with a duty to do so with prudence and diligence. In earlier equity mediocre or failed investments were chargeable to trustees only where shown to involve wilful default, which meant choice of investments outside the range or risk profile of those approved by the law or expressly licensed by the settlor or beneficiary. Lord Eldon in the early nineteenth century entrenched the view that only assets with indestructible capital -- for trust funds, gilts and mortgages on a wide safety margin, and in the case of trusts of realty, further land purchase -- were fit targets for trust investment without special authorisation. With more sophisticated capital markets developing in the nineteenth century, parties regularly set up far wider trust powers of investment, and the legal standard shifted towards enforcing prudent investment processes rather than safe results, using a benchmark of common practice to fix the requisite standard of care. American law from the late 1970s shifted to a new default position mandating portfolio investment, once it had become clear that the great majority of professionally managed trusts typically authorised entry into the profitable if volatile stock market; Australian and English law and practice eventually followed. Meanwhile, government policy favouring funded welfare, as opposed to the pre- and post-war fiscal transfer and national insurance systems, led to massive growth of pension capital under trust management. Statutory and curial reforms allowed pension trustees, and then all trustees, to invest unrestrictedly in all asset classes as plenary owners including portfolio stock investment, provided that certain undemanding standards of care and propriety were met. Portfolio investment by trustees was designed to win the 'equity risk premium' for beneficiaries while avoiding the volatility of the capital markets, through bundling into mutual funds permitting index sampling of wide markets and hedging and risk-correlation of equities and bonds. The recent sharp fall in share values allied to the credit crunch and financial banking crisis starting in late 2007 have tested the portfolio theory to destruction. Whether the macroeconomic benefits of market allocation of pension trust capital through unrestricted private choice has delivered sufficient stable welfare to enough individuals is a question the law may be ill equipped to answer. But trust law does have resources to detect individual and collective pathologies in investment conduct and set standards that can direct parties into less destructive paths.
J S Getzler, 'Plural Ownership, Funds, and the Aggregation of Wills' (2009) 10 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 241 [...]
This Article suggests that common ownership, better described as, plural ownership to distinguish the phenomenon from semicommons, may usefully be analysed from a dual perspective. Plural ownership may simultaneously be seen as an aggregation of individualised rights, duties and intentions, and as giving rise to a real entity with a group mind and corporate rights and duties distinct from those of the individual owners. For the purposes of understanding this dualism, the most developed and interesting form of plural ownership is the trust fund with multiple controllers and beneficiaries, an ancient device that now serves as the bedrock of modern capitalism. The fund is here subjected to legal, historical and philosophical scrutiny to uncover how group personality is generated by plural ownership in the absence of formal legal incorporation.
J S Getzler, 'Transplantation and Mutation in Anglo-American Trust Law' (2009) 10 Theoretical Inquiries in Law 355 [...]
In the early nineteenth century, authoritative treatise writers such as Joseph Story represented Anglo-American trust law as a seamless web. But the transplantation of trusts law from England to America was not a simple process of adherence. Rather, American courts and legislatures came to discard fundamental doctrines of English trusts law, and by such genetic engineering mutated this body of law into a new breed. Restraints on anticipation and on alienation were embraced, and in key state jurisdictions bare trusts were abolished, or else displaced from the core of trusts law. Irreducible settlor power over beneficiaries and the strong protection of beneficiaries from creditors under spendthrift trusts were two strikingly original American creations flowing from these basic doctrinal choices. The changes made to American trust doctrine leads to a paradox for the legal, social and economic historian, namely that republican America ended up with more a dynastic property law, more wedded to the dead hand and more hostile to commercial creditors, than did aristocratic England with its unreformed system of common law and equity rooted in the feudal property system. This paper explains how the English slowly came to commit to relatively free alienability of beneficial interests and the enhancement of beneficiary's powers over trust assets, and then charts how Americans abandoned these commitments. Some fresh interpretations are offered as to why these divergences occurred, rooted in the volatility of credit in America and the desire of the wealthy to escape from the pressures of the market.
J S Getzler, 'ASIC v Citigroup: Bankers' conflict of interest and the contractual exclusion of fiduciary duties' (2007) 2 Journal of Equity 62 [...]
An investment bank advising a client in a takeover bid may simultaneously engage in trading in the target company, and this carries a risk of driving up the target price. If, however, the bank forbears to trade, the market may take this as a confirmation that a takeover is being planned by the advisory wing of the bank, again affecting the target price. In ASIC v Citigroup, the bank had excluded all fiduciary duties towards its client, and so claimed there was no conflict of interest in the bank's proprietary trading in the target company ahead of the takeover operation. ASIC argued that in the run-up to execution of the retainer the bank had a preliminary fiduciary duty to seek fully informed consent to the broad exclusion of fiduciary duties, such that the client understood the risk that the bank might trade or otherwise act against the client's interests. The Federal Court ruled that formal consent sufficed where the parties were well-advised business actors, or alternatively that commercial actors implicitly consent to such risks. The decision identifies - but does not solve - the pervasive problem of conflicts of interest generated by the integrated investment banking model.
Is an attack on property capable of being analogized as an assault, on the personality of the owner instead of on the body? The laws of burglary and property defence suggest that the historical answer is complicated; both theory of justification and excuse and property theory can lend insights.An expanded version of 'Property, Personality and Violence', appearing in "Properties of Law".
Criticises Lobban's procedural vision of early 19th centiry law-equity fusion, and places the process within a context of substantive doctrine and wider law reform in England's commercialising economy.
J S Getzler, 'Legislative incursions into modern trusts doctrine in England: The Trustee Act 2000 and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999' (2002) 2:1:#2 Global Jurist Topics 1 [...]
English trust law is increasingly emulating contract. The relationship of trustee to beneficiaries is now modelled as a consensual relationship created by agreement rather than custody; and governed by standards and duties of care with tort-like features as opposed to traditional fiduciary controls. This movement, which has considerable support in the appellate judiciary, is accelerated by the recasting of trustee powers and duties in the Trustee Act 2000. Further contractualization might provoke a shift into third-party-beneficiary contract and agency models, a process that may be helped by the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The shift to contract-tort models may have gone too far in empowering trustees at the expense of entrustors, and on a broader level, in deregulating capital investment markets.
J S Getzler, 'Is Pragmatism the End of Ideology?' (1997) 17 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 525
J S Getzler, 'Theories of Property and Economic Development' (1996) 26 Journal of Interdisciplinary History 639
J S Getzler, 'Unconscionable Conduct and Unjust Enrichment as Grounds for Judicial Intervention' (1990) 16 Monash University Law Review 283
J S Getzler, A History of Water Rights at Common Law (paperback) (Oxford University Press 2006) [...]
Paperback corrected edition of my monograph of 2004; see parallel entry.
J S Getzler, A History of Water Rights at Common Law (OUP 2004) [...]
Winner of Peter Birks Prize for Outstanding Legal Scholarship 2005, awarded by Society of Legal Scholars
J S Getzler, 'Ascribing and Limiting Fiduciary Obligations: Understanding the Operation of Consent' in Andrew S. Gold & Paul B. Miller (eds), Philosophical Foundations of Fiduciary Law (Oxford University Press 2014)
J S Getzler, 'Financial crisis and the decline of fiduciary law' in Charles Morris & David Vines (eds), Capital Failure: Rebuilding Trust in Financial Services (Oxford University Press 2014)
J S Getzler, 'Law and Self-Interest' in Maksymilian Del Mar and Michael Lobban (eds), Legal Theory and Legal History: A Neglected Dialogue ( 2014)
J S Getzler, 'Faith, Trust, and Charity' in A Burrows, D Johnston, and R Zimmermann (eds), Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (Oxford University Press 2013) [...]
Lord Rodger's last book examined constitutional issues arising from the Disruption of the Church of Scotland of 1843. This essay in honour of Lord Rodger looks at the Disruption anew through the lens of private law. It examines problems arising where a court is vested with jurisdiction over issues of religion by the regular operation of secular law as a source of private rights created at will by private actors. This is quite distinct from cases where religious practice collides with secular law created directly by coercive public command so as to bind all subjects. For example, where a group forms an association based on civil institutions of contract, co-ownership and trust in order to pursue a common religious life, then regular enforcement of those private-law agreements and shared property rights can give the courts a lever to decide matters of religion enshrined in the original constitution of the group. Thus if A and B vest property into common or entrusted ownership and agree that this will be used to support a certain form of religious practice, creed, and ritual, then A may sue B to force him by law not to vary the practice, creed, or ritual, as a matter of contract, property, or trust law. Successors may perpetually rely on the original agreements to enforce religious forms many generations later. And a religious form of life may be "double-entrenched" by making the original means of governance of the religious community a fundamental condition of the association and so immune to normal majoritarian vote. These issues were fought out in many great cases before and after the Disruption, and this jurisprudence forms a backdrop to Lord Rodger's important dissent in the Jewish Free School Case of 2009.
J S Getzler, 'Assignment of Future Property and Preferences' in J Glister and P Ridge (eds), Fault Lines in Equity (Hart Publishing 2012) [...]
An investigation of a flashpoint in the judicial control of insolvency. I examine how the equitable law of future assignments, designed to enforce paid-for promises and uphold the interests of assignees, is in tension with another 'equitable' policy established by statute, namely the jurisdiction to prevent preferential assignments that tend to defraud creditors by blocking recourse against debtors' assets. The High Court of Australia has been particularly active in this area, issuing an important judgments from the early 20th century to the present day. This body of law demonstrates the intermingling of equity jurisprudence and statute.
J S Getzler, 'Morice v Bishop of Durham (1805)' in C Mitchell and P Mitchell (eds), Landmark Cases in Equity (Hart Publishing 2012) [...]
Morice v Bishop of Durham (1804-5) is most definitely a leading case in the law of trusts. But it was not cited as authority for any 'beneficiary principle' or 'certainty of objects' rule in the general texts of trusts and equity until well toward the middle of the nineteenth century. Its real celebrity as a leading decision dates to the early and mid-twentieth century, as lawyers grappled with the challenge of amorphous beneficial objects in the new environments of family and corporate tax planning, corporate finance, pensions, and offshore jurisdictions. The urgent problems facing lawyers at the time of Morice were rather different, and harked back to two linked issues that had troubled the legal system since before the Reformation -- controlling the deathbed disherison of heirs, and restraining the putting of testamentary property into mortmain, that is perpetual or 'deadhand' control of property by ecclesiastical bodies or other corporations. This explains why Morice was early picked up by cases and texts on mortmain and charitable uses, and remained rather invisible in the key literatures on trusts. The beneficiary principle had to become controversial before it could be noticed properly as a foundational doctrine.
J S Getzler, 'Company Law: English Common Law' in S N Katz (ed), The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History (Oxford University Press 2009)
J S Getzler, 'Easements' in S N Katz (ed), The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History (Oxford University Press 2009)
J S Getzler, 'Environment Law: English Common Law' in S N Katz (ed), The Oxford International Encyclopedia of Legal History (Oxford University Press 2009)
J S Getzler, 'Denning, Alfred Thompson; Historical Research in Law; Keech v Sandford; Water Law' in P Cane and J Conaghan (eds), New Oxford Companion to Law (Oxford University Press 2008)
J S Getzler, 'Property, Personality, and Violence' in T Endicott, J Getzler, and E Peel (eds), Properties of Law: Essays in Honour of Jim Harris (Oxford University Press 2006) [...]
What are the conditions that justify the use of violence to defend property? If attacks on property can be compared to assault on the personality of the owner, then does this justify violence as a response to dignitary attack? Recent theoretical work on justification and excuse and property theory can lend insights.
J S Getzler, 'Rumford Market and the Genesis of Fiduciary Obligations' in A Burrows and A Rodger (eds), Mapping the Law: Essays in Memory of Peter Birks (OUP 2006) [...]
The seminal case of Keech v Sandford is analysed from three perspectives: the fiduciary theory of Peter Birks which sees fiduciaries as an offspring of trust custodianship; the historical intent of King LC, the author of the judgment, which was to prevent profit from office as a basic principle of public and legal mores; and the longer-term historical functions of fiduciary law. It is argued that trusts can be seen as an offspring of the fiduciary principle, and that the historical strength of the principle should speak against attempts by John Langbein and others in the US and UK to dilute that principle into one of acting in the best interests of beneficiaries.
J S Getzler, 'The Role of Security over Future and Circulating Capital: Evidence from the British Economy circa 1850-1920' in J Getzler and J Payne (eds), Company Charges: Spectrum and Beyond (OUP 2006) [...]
An analysis drawing on economic history to cast doubt on the orthodox view - expressed inter alia by Lord Scott in Spectrum - that floating charges were an essential innovation in late-19th century corporate finance, necessary to summon loan capital for enterprise and so counterbalance weaknesses in the equity market. An alternative thesis is offered that the floating charge was developed to maintain bank liquidity, and may have distorted entrepreneurial incentives.
J S Getzler, 'Am I My Beneficiary's Keeper? Fusion and Loss-Based Fiduciary Remedies' in S Degeling and J Edelman (eds), Equity in Commercial Law (Thomson (LBC), Sydney 2005)
J S Getzler and Mike Macnair, 'The Firm as an Entity before the Companies Acts' in P Brand, K Costello and W N Osborough (eds), Adventures in the Law: Proceedings of the 16th British Legal History Conference, Dublin ( 2005) [...]
Shows how law, equity and ad hoc statute permitted forward and reverse asset partitioning in the two centuries before the Companies Acts, and thereby questions the orthodoxy regarding the rise of free incorporation.
J S Getzler, 'Edward Sugden, Baron St. Leonards' in C Matthew and B Harrison (eds), The New Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004)
J S Getzler, 'Sir Charles Crompton' in C Matthew and B Harrison (eds), The New Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004)
J S Getzler, 'Sir Cresswell Cresswell' in C Matthew and B Harrison (eds), The New Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004)
J S Getzler, 'Sir John Jervis' in C Matthew and B Harrison (eds), The New Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2004)
J S Getzler, 'Law, history and the social sciences: intellectual traditions of late 19th and early 20th century Europe' in A Lewis and M Lobban (eds), Law and History: Current Legal Issues (OUP 2003)
J S Getzler, 'Roman and English Prescription for Incorporeal Property' in J Getzler (ed), Rationalizing Property, Equity and Trusts: Essays in Honour of Edward Burn (Lexis-Nexis Butterworths 2003) [...]
Analysis and criticism of prescription for incorporeal property and nature of land use titles, showing dense historical background to the House of Lords decision in Hunter v Canary Wharf and indicating future directions for simplifying law reform.
J S Getzler, 'Duty of Care' in P Birks and A Pretto (eds), Breach of Trust (Hart Publishing 2002)
J S Getzler, 'Equity' in H M Kritzer (ed), Legal Systems of the World: A Political, Social and Cultural Encyclopaedia (ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara 2002) [...]
Analysis of theory and history of equity, in ancient law and modern common law.
J S Getzler, 'The Fate of the Civil Jury in Late Victorian England: Malicious Prosecution as a Test Case (revised version)' in J W Cairns and G McLeod (eds), 'The Dearest Birth Right of the People of England': The Jury in the History of the Common Law (Hart Publishing, Oxford 2002)
J S Getzler, 'Equitable Compensation and the Regulation of Fiduciary Relationships' in P B H Birks and F D Rose (eds), Restitution and Equity Vol. 1: Resulting Trusts and Equitable Compensation (Mansfield Press/LLP, London 2000)
J S Getzler, 'The Fate of the Civil Jury in Late Victorian England: Malicious Prosecution as a Test Case' in G R Rubin and K O'Donovan (eds), Human Rights and Legal History: Essays for Brian Simpson (Oxford University Press, Oxford 2000)
J S Getzler, 'Roman Ideas of Landownership' in S Bright and J Dewar (eds), Land Law: Themes and Perspectives (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998)
J S Getzler, 'Judges and Hunters: Law and Economic Conflict in the English Countryside, 1800-60' in C Brooks and M Lobban (eds), Communities and Courts in Britain 1150-1900 (Hambledon Press, London 1997)
J S Getzler, 'Patterns of Fusion' in P B H Birks (ed), The Classification of Obligations (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1997)
J S Getzler, 'Theories of Property and Economic Development (revised and shortened version)' in J W Harris (ed), Property Problems: From Genes to Pension Funds (Kluwer, The Hague and London 1997)
J S Getzler, 'Professionals As Competing Monopolists' in P B H Birks (ed), Wrongs and Remedies in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford University Press, Oxford 1996)
J S Getzler and Paul Brand (eds), Judges and Judging in the History of the Common Law and Civil Law (Cambridge University Press 2012) [...]
This volume of essays by leading legal historians addresses significant topics in the complex history of judges and judging, with comparisons not only between British, American and Commonwealth experience, but also with the judiciary in civil-law countries.
J S Getzler and Jennifer Payne (eds), Company Charges: Spectrum and Beyond (Oxford University Press 2006) [...]
This volume draws together the views of some prominent figures in corporate law and finance regarding the law on fixed and floating charges. The focus for the book is the litigation in the case of Spectrum Plus, which culminated in a House of Lords judgment in June 2005 ( UKHL 41).This decision has important commercial implications, not only for the parties in the case but also for the business community at large, including banks and other lenders, and practitioners in corporate finance and insolvency. The litigation also raises important juristic questions regarding the fixed/floating charge divide such as the theoretical basis for that divide, how the divide is determined, why it exists at all and whether it ought to be maintained as a coherent doctrine and a beneficial policy. The decision also has important ramifications in both security law and insolvency law and it provides a challenge to some of our most basic conceptions of freedom of contract and the assignability of rights and assets in law and equity.These issues, amongst others, are explored by the contributors to this book. The contributors include Gabriel Moss, who was one of the QCs involved in the Spectrum litigation, Sir Roy Goode, Michael Bridge, John Armour, Robert Stevens, Sarah Worthington, Julian Franks and Oren Sussman, Jenny Payne and Louise Gullifer, Philip Wood, Joshua Getzler, Look Chan Ho and Nicholas Frome.
J S Getzler, Timothy Endicott and Edwin Peel (eds), Properties of Law: Essays in Honour of Jim Harris (Oxford University Press 2006) [...]
Essays on legal theory, property theory, precedent, and criminal law.The late Jim Harris' theory of the science of law, and his theoretical work on human rights and property, have been a challenge and stimulus to legal scholars for the past twenty-five years. This collection of essays, originally conceived as a festschrift and now offered to the memory of a greatly admired scholar, assesses Harris' contribution across many fields of law and legal philosophy. The chapters are written by some of the foremost specialists writing today, and reflect the wide range of Harris's work, and the depth of his influence on legal studies. They include contributions on topics as diverse as the nature of law and legal reasoning, rival theories of property rights and their impact on practical questions before the courts; the nature of precedent in legal argument; and the evolving concept of human rights and its place in legal discourse.
J S Getzler (ed), Rationalizing Property, Equity and Trusts - Essays in Honour of Edward Burn (Lexis-Nexis Butterworths 2003) [...]
In this festschrift, appellate judges, academic lawyers and practitioners have joined to celebrate Edward Burn's career as a searching writer and brilliant teacher. Essays volume cover topics including: the rationality of English land law; the reach of land registration; the nature of proprietary estoppel; the essential attributes of trusts and how they can be exported to Civilian systems; the nature of fiduciary liability; the relationship between restitution and equity; the duty of care in will drafting; form and substance in tax, lease and mortgage law; the relationship between English and Romanesque prescription theories; and the study of Roman law in Oxford.
J S Getzler, 'Quantum Meruit, Estoppel, and the Primacy of Contract' (2009) 125 Law Quarterly Review 196 [...]
The House of Lords and the High Court of Australia in separate decisions made within weeks of each other grappled with the correct use of equitable and restitutionary doctrines augmenting the operation of contract law in commercial relationships. The Lords sharply narrowed the doctrine of estoppel where a contract failed to materialize after heavy reliance by a putative joint venturer; but were permissive in allowing a limited quantum meruit remedy based on unjust enrichment. The High Court rejected any possibility of a leapfrogging claim to allow recovery of enrichment by a subcontractor, and the plurality in obiter comments threw doubt on the existence of an autonomous unjust enrichment principle in Australian law.
J S Getzler, 'Excluding fiduciary duties: the problem of investment banks' (2008) 124 Law Quarterly Review 15 [...]
Integrated investment banks trading in securities markets can end up acting against the interests of clients they advise in mergers and other deals. Typically the bank's retainer excludes fiduciary duties so as to allow the bank activities which otherwise would constitute conflicts of interest. In ASIC v Citigroup the Federal Court of Australia held that formal consent to such exclusions of duty sufficed, and that fully informed consent was not requisite. The problem of pervasive conflicts of interest in financial markets was identified, but the judge held that only a legislative solution would be legitimate.
J S Getzler, 'Inconsistent Fiduciary Duties and Implied Consent' (2006) 122 Law Quarterly Review 1 [...]
Describes the tightening of the application of the loyalty rules for fiduciaries such as solicitors, so as to prevent them serving two clients with inconsistent interests. Attempts to find an implied consent to limitation of the demanding sole interest duty of loyalty in the Court of Appeal are rejected in the House of Lords decision in Hilton v Barker Booth & Eastwood  UKHL 8;  1 W.L.R.567.
J S Getzler, 'Forfeiture for Breach of a Time Condition' (2004) 120 Law Quarterly Review 203 [...]
Recent High Court, Privy Council and House of Lords authorites investigate when equitable doctrine will allow relief against confiscation of an estate contract where a purchaser exceeds a time condition. In Tanwar v Cauchi the High Court resolves a confused set of authorities and tilts towards strict enforcement of duties.
J S Getzler, 'Unclean Hands and the Doctrine of Jus Tertii' (2001) 117 Law Quarterly Review 565 [...]
The nature of titles to personal property as ranked rights to possession is analysed in relation to a case where the legal basis for police confiscation ended, so leaving a presumed thief with a superior title. The illegality or viciousness of the earlier possession was not a bar to title.
J S Getzler, 'M. Grossberg and C. Tomlins, eds, The Cambridge History Of Law In America Vol iii: The Twentieth Century And After (1920-)' (2010) 14 Edinburgh Law Review 513
J S Getzler, 'A. Letwin, The Last Political Law Lord: Lord Sumner (1859-1934)' (2009) 125 Law Quarterly Review 702
J S Getzler, 'T. Frankel, Trust and Honesty: America's Business Culture at a Crossroad' (2007) 70 Modern Law Review 701
J S Getzler, 'P. Cane and M. Tushnet, Oxford Handbook to Legal Studies' (2005) 121 Law Quarterly Review 513
J S Getzler, 'G. Morgan and P. Rushton, Rogues, Thieves and the Rule of Law' (2003) 21 Law and History Review 223
J S Getzler, 'T. Blackshield and others, The Oxford Companion to the High Court of Australia' (2003) 120 Law Quarterly Review 526
J S Getzler, 'Economics of Hate Speech, review of R.A. Posner, Frontiers of Legal Theory' (2002) Times Higher Education Supplement 28
J S Getzler, 'M. Taggart, Private Property and Abuse of Rights in Victorian England: The Story of Edward Pickles and the Bradford Water Supply' (2002) 66 Modern Law Review 819
J S Getzler, 'K.M. Teeven, Promises on Prior Obligations at Common Law' (2001) 5 Edinburgh Law Review 108
J S Getzler, 'G. Moffat and others, Trusts Law: Text and Materials (3rd edition)' (2000) 14 Trust Law International 183
J S Getzler, 'P. Goodrich, Oedipus Lex: Psychoanalysis, History, Law' (2000) 21 Journal of Legal History 141
J S Getzler, 'P. Lahav, Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century' (2000) 63 Modern Law Review 788
J S Getzler, 'A.J. Oakley, ed., Trends in Contemporary Trust Law' (1997) Restitution Law Review 261
J S Getzler, 'A.W.B. Simpson, Leading Cases in the Common Law' (1997) 18 Journal of Legal History 116
J S Getzler, 'G.R. Rubin, Private Property, Government Requisition and the Constitution 1914-1927' (1995) 20 Social History Society Bulletin 68
J S Getzler, 'R.W. Kostal, Law and English Railway Capitalism 1825-1875' (1995) 111 Law Quarterly Review 696
J S Getzler, 'A. Offer, Property and Politics 1870-1914 and J.S. Anderson, Lawyers and the Making of English Land Law' (1993) 109 Law Quarterly Review 684
Research: Modern Legal History, Law and Economics, Obligations, Equity and Trusts, Property Theory, Law and Finance, Capital Markets