Category: Bristol Scholars

Compensation for Historic Sexual Abuse in Australia: Vicarious Liability v. Non-delegable Duties

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Professor Paula Giliker, University of Bristol Law School

On 17 June 2025, the High Court of Australia (HCA) gave special permission to appeal in AA v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Maitland-Newcastle ABN [2025] HCA Trans 47. The matter is listed for hearing in the HCA on 7 August 2025. AA involves a claim by the plaintiff who, in 1969 (then aged 13), was allegedly sexually abused by an assistant priest in a local church presbytery after being invited there to consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes and play on a gambling machine in the priest’s bedroom. At first instance ([2024] NSWSC 1183), the judge had found the Catholic Diocese to be vicariously liable for the priest’s wrongdoing and that the Church had breached its duty of care to the plaintiff. However, judgment was given before the game-changing decision of the HCA in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41. As I have discussed earlier, in Bird, the majority of the HCA held that, in Australia, the principles of vicarious liability are confined to employment relationships. On this basis, the torts of priests, who are not technically employees, would not be covered by vicarious liability.  The HCA rejected the suggestion, found in UK cases such as The Catholic Child Welfare Society v Various Claimants (CCWS) [2012] UKSC 56 and in Canada that the relationship test for vicarious liability could be extended to relationships “akin to employment” (that is, relationships not technically of employment but practically very similar in nature). This, argued the majority, would produce uncertainty and indeterminacy. (more…)

Advancing Legal Perspectives on Climate Reparations

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Sahar Shah, University of Bristol Law School and Joy Reyes, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.

“Activists from the Climate Reparations Bloc prepare for a march.” by Insure Our Future

Mitigating climate change is one thing; climate justice is another – however, the two concepts are often conflated in political and media discourses. This is a problem because the two issues require distinct analyses and responses. Without clarity about the nature of, and reasons for, these distinctions, the injustices that stem from climate change risk being subsumed under broadly defined ‘climate mitigation’ efforts. Legal language provides an apt toolkit for clarifying the ‘justice-based’ issues at stake in relation to climate change – and for translating these issues from the theoretical realm into public and policy spheres. The concept of ‘climate reparations’ serves as a topical case in point. (more…)

The international legal implications of supporting Israel, in light of the ICJ’s provisional measures and advisory opinion

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Dr. Kathryn Allinson, Lecturer in Law, University of Bristol

Destruction in the Gaza Strip, Palestine. Image by Hosny Salah, a Palestinian photographer living in the Gaza Strip. Follow him on Pixabay

The UK government is currently in the High Court defending its ongoing supply of fighter jet components to Israel. The legal dispute centres on the government’s choice to exclude F-35 parts while halting 30 arms licenses to Israel in September 2024. The F-35 plays a crucial role in Israel’s operations in Gaza, enabling the deployment of highly destructive missile strikes. An incident on July 30 resulted in the deaths of 90 Palestinians and injuries to over 300. The lawsuit contends that the UK government’s policy violates the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, which prohibit the sale of arms to nations where they could be used in violation of international law. (more…)

Introduction to Extractive Industry and Foreign Security Network Blog Series

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

Dr Lee McConnell is a Senior Lecturer in International Law at the University of Bristol Law School and the primary investigator on the Arts and Humanity Research Council Research Networking Scheme AH/W0072X/1 project, Extractive Industry and Foreign Security Network. Dr Jane Rooney is a Co-investigator and Associate Professor in International Law at Durham Law School. Our Project Partner is the NGO Rights and Accountability in Development.

The Extractive Industry and Foreign Security Network is an international, multi-stakeholder, interdisciplinary research network that investigates adverse human rights impacts arising from the interactions between UK-based extractive industries and the security forces in foreign States.

This blog series distils discussions that took place during the three workshops and two public engagement events from 2023-2024 funded by the AHRC. This series is published alongside a commissioned contribution in a forthcoming Debates and Dialogue Section of the Social and Legal Studies Journal. (more…)

BABEL project researchers work with University of Bristol students to raise awareness of mental capacity law

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Gus Harrison, Judy Laing, Sheelagh McGuinness, and Patty Miranda

Setting the stage: six years of the BABEL project

The Wellcome-funded BABEL project at the University of Bristol has, for the last six years or so, been exploring best interests decision making for adults and children in England and Wales. The collaborative project started towards the end of 2018 and involved several different work strands with researchers based in the Centre for Health, Law, and Society (CHLS) and the Centre for Ethics in Medicine.  The law work strand, based in the CHLS at the Law School, focused on best interests decision-making in law. The law research team – Judy Laing, Sheelagh McGuinness, and Aoife Finnerty—carried out empirical research with legal practitioners to find out their views about this branch of legal decision-making. The research findings are now being written up and will be published later this year, including in an edited book, to be published by Bristol University Press in 2026. (more…)

Why Helen Pitcher’s resignation as Chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) is a red herring to distract attention away from the ‘real possibility test’

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

By Dr Michael Naughton, Reader in Sociology and Law (University of Bristol Law School and  School of Sociology, Politics and International Studies (SPAIS)).

Introduction

It is understandable that when we are wronged or we or a loved one experiences a grave injustice that we want someone to take responsibility for it and something to be done in response to try to put it right. Such responsibility would entail an apology that shows genuine remorse or regret that the wrong occurred, insight that the cause of the wrong is appropriately understood, assurances that such a wrong will not happen again and, if possible, redress for the harm that has been caused. (more…)

Caging the Bird: Vicarious Liability in the High Court of Australia

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Professor Paula Giliker, University of Bristol Law School

The recent decision of the High Court of Australia (HCA) in Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41 creates a radical split between the treatment of vicarious liability in Australia and other common law states such as England and Wales and Canada. It is therefore a case worthy of consideration across the common law world. Its impact will be examined in this blog. (more…)

Assisted Dying Bill: Why the challenge for MPs is not a lack of information

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Colin Gavaghan, Professor of Law, University of Bristol Law School

Anil Douglas said his father, Ian, was suffering from multiple sclerosis and secretly took his own life in February 2019, with his illness at an advanced stage. (AFP pic)

The debate around the latest assisted dying bill – Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (TIA Bill) – has taken some unexpected turns. The usual arguments around choice and safety, the sanctity of life and dignity in death, have been supplemented by a range of procedural concerns. Some veteran MPs have even expressed the surprising argument that their new colleagues are too inexperienced to fully understand a matter of such importance. On the face of it, this is a remarkable claim; as Hannah White and Jill Rutter wrote in an article for the Institute for Government,  ‘being willing to use one’s personal judgement to decide matters of national importance – without the comforting guidance of the party whips – is a core competence for the role.’ (more…)

A Fresh Reflection on COP 16 and the Convention on Biological Diversity

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

by Professor Margherita Pieraccini, Professor of Law at the University of Bristol Law School

As 2024 is drawing to a close, Conferences of the Parties (COPs) of three major Multilateral Environmental Agreements are happening in close succession: COP 16 of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was held between end of October and the beginning of November, COP 29 of the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is happening in mid-November, and COP 16 of the UN Convention to Combat Desertification will take place in early December. Although exploring the synergies between these three COPs is of great importance and their close temporal proximity this year facilitates such discussion, I will focus solely on the CBD COP 16 as I had the opportunity to attend it in person as a University of Bristol academic observer. (more…)

Enforcement and the Greater Good: The View from Financial Services Law & Regulation

Posted on by foluke.adebisi

By James Davey, Professor of Insurance & Commercial Law, University of Bristol Law School

Assume that we can agree what the greater good entails. And that we can design an optimal set of rules or principles that meets this objective. Who should enforce these rules, and how? This is an issue that caught the attention of leading scholars in the second half of the twentieth century. Papers by Becker, Stigler and Posner are emblematic of an initial burst of activity in the 1960s. This has since developed into a distinct branch of regulatory theory. Over time, this broadened beyond the architecture of public law and has become an embedded element within private law. This co-option of private law, and in particular the law of contract, as a form of governance has been decried by some but is now well established as a regulatory technique (Collins, 1999). (more…)