Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
A Continental Distinction in the Common LawA Historical and Comparative Perspective on English Public Law$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

J.W.F. Allison

Print publication date: 2000

Print ISBN-13: 9780198298656

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: January 2010

DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298656.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2020. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 22 February 2020

A Trojan Horse of the English Legal Tradition

A Trojan Horse of the English Legal Tradition

Chapter:
(p.72) 5 A Trojan Horse of the English Legal Tradition
Source:
A Continental Distinction in the Common Law
Author(s):

J. W. F. Allison

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198298656.003.0005

Contrasting with French focus on the state administration has been traditional English legal neglect, exemplified in a bifurcated view of individual officials and a Crown somehow separate from its officers. This chapter relates the traditional negation of the distinction between public and private law to that neglect, which it attributes to the lateness of administrative centralization in England and the theoretical insularity of the English legal profession. It describes belated 20th-century legal recognition (by Laski and others) of a state administration that was both alien and becoming increasingly indistinct through the expansion of its welfare functions and the proliferation of hybrid institutions. The outcome, it argues, was therefore not the ready entrenchment of the procedural distinction between public and private law in O'Reilly v Mackman on the scope of judicial review procedure. Rather, it was much dissatisfaction with repeated judicial attempts to apply the distinction to functions and institutions neither clearly public or private, further obscured by privatization, and still clouded by traditional understandings of the Crown.

Keywords:   Crown, public and private, centralization, administration, Laski, welfare functions, hybrid institutions, privatization, judicial review, O'Reilly v Mackman

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .