David Cabrelli

Convergence, Legal Origins, and Transplants in Comparative Corporate Law

In this Article, we intend to fill a gap in the comparative law literature by adopting a case-based approach to comparative corporate law that highlights the important dimension of specific cases in corporate law matters and how identifiable, but limited issues arising from such case disputes are resolved in different jurisdictions. Our study is based on ten cases used in a wider research project and their solutions in ten countries: eight European countries, the United States, and Japan. We assess the solutions to these cases using quantitative methods of network and cluster analysis. We also seek to enquire whether conceptual differences exist between countries in terms of the source, form, style, and substance of the legal rules which comprise their corporate laws. The findings of this assessment are used to evaluate arguments developed in the academic comparative company literature which posit that the existence of fundamental differences in the protection of shareholders across countries reduces the scope for convergence in corporate law systems. The case-based evaluation is also applied to make a contribution towards other influential theories in comparative law, particularly the “legal origins” theorem and the “legal transplants” debate. For example, while we find some evidence of legal transplants, we will show that the notion of legal origins has only limited value in today’s corporate law. Furthermore, the research has a public policy dimension since the existence or absence of differences matters for the question of whether formal harmonization of corporate law in the EU, or further afield, is necessary, desirable, or at all possible.

The Elective and Automatic Theories of Termination in the Common Law of the Contract of Employment

If a party to an employment contract commits a repudiatory dismissal or resignation, it has long been unclear whether the other party has the option either to terminate or affirm the contract (the elective theory) or whether the formers breach operates to bring the contract of employment to an end (the automatic theory). The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Societe Generale (London Branch) v Geys has finally resolved this question. By a majority, the Supreme Court held that the elective theory also applies in the context of a wrongful repudiation of the employment contract by express dismissal or resignation. This note examines the significance of Geys in the context of the common law of the contract of employment and evaluates whether a number of related issues surrounding the breach and termination of the employment contract have been resolved.

The elective and automatic theories of termination in the common law of the contract of employment : conundrum resolved?

If a party to an employment contract commits a repudiatory dismissal or resignation, it has long been unclear whether the other party has the option either to terminate or affirm the contract (the elective theory) or whether the formers breach operates to bring the contract of employment to an end (the automatic theory). The recent decision of the Supreme Court in Societe Generale (London Branch) v Geys has finally resolved this question. By a majority, the Supreme Court held that the elective theory also applies in the context of a wrongful repudiation of the employment contract by express dismissal or resignation. This note examines the significance of Geys in the context of the common law of the contract of employment and evaluates whether a number of related issues surrounding the breach and termination of the employment contract have been resolved.

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp: Statutory Constructive Dismissal and the Implied Term of Mutual Trust and Confidence

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 121; [2010] ICR 908; [2010] IRLR 445 is one which has ramifications for the common law and statutory regulation of the contract of employment. However, its significance does not end there, since it offers wider insights into the relationship between common law and statute law, as well as the English and Scots law of contract generally.

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp.

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 121; [2010] ICR 908; [2010] IRLR 445 is one which has ramifications for the common law and statutory regulation of the contract of employment. However, its significance does not end there, since it offers wider insights into the relationship between common law and statute law, as well as the English and Scots law of contract generally.

The Hierarchy of Differing Behavioural Standards in Labour Law: A Case for Limited Re-Alignment

This paper pursues a line of enquiry regarding employment laws which promulgate standards (rather than rules), the legitimacy of which are premised on the need to scrutinise managerial autonomy pursuant to a norm-setting, rather than norm-reflecting agenda. Insights will be offered in relation to the expectations about the exercise of the managerial prerogative which the law transmits through such standards. The argument is advanced that a by-product of the common law and statutory policy initiatives lying at the heart of the regulation of managerial autonomy has been the emergence of differing behavioural standards in the employment relationship. In order to satisfy the common law and statutory obligations which it owes towards its employees, employers are expected to discharge a variety of standards of conduct and review. These differing standards can be grouped into a hierarchy, exploring how they function at higher or lower levels of managerial scrutiny. The paper proceeds to explore the rationales for the promulgation of such differing behavioural standards in different decision-making contexts. The paper goes on to analyse whether such differing standards are justifiable from a formalistic and doctrinal perspective and considers the desirability of a package of reform consisting of the re-alignment of standards in order to reflect fundamental values underpinning the employment relationship.