Louise Gullifer has been teaching at Oxford since 1991. Before that she practised at the Commercial Bar in chambers at 3 Gray's Inn Place (now 3 Verulam Buildings), under her maiden name (Louise Edwards). She remains an honorary member of those chambers. She teaches Roman law, Contract law, Commercial Law, Corporate Finance law and Corporate Insolvency law and is the senior law tutor at Harris Manchester College. From 1994-97 she was a Fellow of Brasenose College. She is Chair of the University Student Disciplinary Panel and has been the Oxford Law Faculty Development Co-ordinator.
Her research interests focus broadly on commercial law and corporate finance. She has co-authored books on security and title financing and corporate finance, and is presently co-authoring books on personal property and set-off in arbitration. She is particularly interested in financial collateral and intermediated securities, as well as national and international reform of secured transactions law. She is the director of the Commercial Law Centre at Harris Manchester College. She is Director of the Secured Transaction Law Reform Project and is also the Oxford Law Faculty Academic Lead for the Cape Town Convention Academic Project.
- ISBN: 0023-933XMany contracts for the supply of goods or services include a clause prohibiting assignment by the supplier of its rights under the contract. The existence of such clauses, both in particular contracts and more generally, can have a chilling effect on the use of receivables as collateral to obtain financing. Thus, in many jurisdictions, there is a legislative override for such clauses, so that they are not enforceable against third parties. There is an ongoing debate as to whether English law should follow suit and, if so, what form the override should take, which has now led to . This paper examines the arguments for and against an override in English law, informed by two small scale surveys undertaken by the author and others over the last four years.The EU Regulation introducing compulsory central clearing in Europe (EMIR), takes an ambivalent attitude towards collateral. On one hand, it makes the provision of collateral to central counterparties (CCPs) compulsory, in order to protect CCPs from credit risk if their counterparties default. On the other hand, it mandates particular collateral holding models, in order to protect counterparties from the risk of CCP insolvency, and to protect clients from the risk of their clearing brokers insolvency. This paper critically examines the EMIR rules for the provision of collateral,as well as some of the market solutions to the new regime, analyses the legal position of each under English law and the resulting mix of risks and protections offered by each technique.In the recent Court of Appeal decision in Wilson v Holt the majority interpreted a retention of title clause in a sale of goods contract as creating an agency relationship between the buyer and seller, so that the buyer sub-sold the goods as agent of the seller. This meant that property in the goods never passed to the buyer, and the seller could not bring an action for the price. This paper argues that the agency construction is wrong as it gives rise to many uncommercial consequences, leads to uncertainty and potentially upsets the balance of interests between financiers of small and medium sized enterprises. It contends that the case of Aluminium Industrie Vaassen B.V. v. Romalpa Aluminium Ltd, used to support many uncommercial interpretations of retention of title clauses, is fundamentally flawed and should be put to rest. Finally, it is argued that the view of the Court of Appeal in Wilson v Holt that section 49 of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 includes the only two circumstances in which a seller can sue for the price is unsatisfactory, and that the section should be reinterpreted or, ideally, reformed.ISBN: 9781847037992DOI: 10.1093/clp/cus001ISBN: 0070-1998ISBN: 978-0-19-960872-0ISBN: 1849460043ISBN: 976-1-84946-013-2ISBN: 9781859418918Mixtures is part of a new chapter in the work. Attornment and Reservation of title involved very considerable updating, given that the last edition was in 19914th edition of this well-known key text by Sir Roy GoodeRecently the UK Government passed the Companies Act 2006, which introduced many reforms to English Company Law as well as reproducing existing law in one (very long) statute. There have also been significant changes in the Corporate Insolvency area introduced by the Enterprise Act 2002, and by case law. This paper will focus on the current fate of the floating charge as a security device.ISBN: 0319-3322ISBN: 978-0-19-922937-6ISBN: 0-19-929993-5ISBN: 978-0-19-928329-3ISBN: 0754624625Considers the proposals by the Law Commission for the reform of the law of personal property security interestsISBN: 0959-6941Book from the Norton Rose Oxford Law Colloquium held in September 2002ISBN: 0-19-926465-1Critique of Law Commission's proposals to reform the law on personal property securityISBN: 0306-2945Discussion of the Cosslett saga of cases with implications for the law of security over personal propertyISBN: 0729-2775Case note on causation in tortISBN: 0023-933X
Common Law, Commercial Law, Corporate Finance law
Options taughtContract, Commercial Law, Corporate Finance Law, Legal Concepts in Financial Law, A Roman Introduction to Private Law