Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making

Research

Associated organisational unit

Electronic data

  • Heil_v_Rankin_final_

    Rights statement: The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Common Law World Review, 45 (4), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Common Law World Review page: http://clw.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://online.sagepub.com/

    Accepted author manuscript, 342 KB, PDF document

    Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Keywords

View graph of relations

The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making: who needs a legislature?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making: who needs a legislature? / Campbell, Ian David.
In: Common Law World Review, Vol. 45, No. 4, 01.12.2016, p. 340-365.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Campbell, ID 2016, 'The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making: who needs a legislature?', Common Law World Review, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 340-365.

APA

Campbell, I. D. (2016). The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making: who needs a legislature? Common Law World Review, 45(4), 340-365.

Vancouver

Campbell ID. The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making: who needs a legislature? Common Law World Review. 2016 Dec 1;45(4):340-365.

Author

Campbell, Ian David. / The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making : who needs a legislature?. In: Common Law World Review. 2016 ; Vol. 45, No. 4. pp. 340-365.

Bibtex

@article{12a312a572e6472fa786e53cf6c05d1e,
title = "The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making: who needs a legislature?",
abstract = "In a remarkably frank paper, Professor Andrew Burrows has shed some light on the process by which awards for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases were uplifted in Heil v Rankin, a process in which he played a leading role as a Law Commissioner. In apparent disregard of the criticisms to which this process has been subjected, Burrows regards it as an example of a valuable {\textquoteleft}methodology{\textquoteright} of common law law reform. These criticisms are reviewed in this paper and to them is added a criticism of the concept of {\textquoteleft}normal decision-making{\textquoteright} by the courts that is the basis of Burrows{\textquoteright} views. Heil v Rankin was far from normal decision-making, but in this it was merely of a piece with all awards of damages for non-pecuniary loss, for such damages have no grounding in the common law adjudication of awards of compensation. The further development in Simmons v Castle of the judicial legislation effected in Heil v Rankin is also considered.",
keywords = "judicial legislation, law reform, non-pecuniary loss, personal injury system, tort",
author = "Campbell, {Ian David}",
note = "The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Common Law World Review, 45 (4), 2016, {\textcopyright} SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Common Law World Review page: http://clw.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://online.sagepub.com/ ",
year = "2016",
month = dec,
day = "1",
language = "English",
volume = "45",
pages = "340--365",
journal = "Common Law World Review",
issn = "1473-7795",
publisher = "Sage Publications",
number = "4",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Heil v Rankin approach to law-making

T2 - who needs a legislature?

AU - Campbell, Ian David

N1 - The final, definitive version of this article has been published in the Journal, Common Law World Review, 45 (4), 2016, © SAGE Publications Ltd, 2016 by SAGE Publications Ltd at the Common Law World Review page: http://clw.sagepub.com/ on SAGE Journals Online: http://online.sagepub.com/

PY - 2016/12/1

Y1 - 2016/12/1

N2 - In a remarkably frank paper, Professor Andrew Burrows has shed some light on the process by which awards for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases were uplifted in Heil v Rankin, a process in which he played a leading role as a Law Commissioner. In apparent disregard of the criticisms to which this process has been subjected, Burrows regards it as an example of a valuable ‘methodology’ of common law law reform. These criticisms are reviewed in this paper and to them is added a criticism of the concept of ‘normal decision-making’ by the courts that is the basis of Burrows’ views. Heil v Rankin was far from normal decision-making, but in this it was merely of a piece with all awards of damages for non-pecuniary loss, for such damages have no grounding in the common law adjudication of awards of compensation. The further development in Simmons v Castle of the judicial legislation effected in Heil v Rankin is also considered.

AB - In a remarkably frank paper, Professor Andrew Burrows has shed some light on the process by which awards for non-pecuniary loss in personal injury cases were uplifted in Heil v Rankin, a process in which he played a leading role as a Law Commissioner. In apparent disregard of the criticisms to which this process has been subjected, Burrows regards it as an example of a valuable ‘methodology’ of common law law reform. These criticisms are reviewed in this paper and to them is added a criticism of the concept of ‘normal decision-making’ by the courts that is the basis of Burrows’ views. Heil v Rankin was far from normal decision-making, but in this it was merely of a piece with all awards of damages for non-pecuniary loss, for such damages have no grounding in the common law adjudication of awards of compensation. The further development in Simmons v Castle of the judicial legislation effected in Heil v Rankin is also considered.

KW - judicial legislation

KW - law reform

KW - non-pecuniary loss

KW - personal injury system

KW - tort

M3 - Journal article

VL - 45

SP - 340

EP - 365

JO - Common Law World Review

JF - Common Law World Review

SN - 1473-7795

IS - 4

ER -