#11705. Gray Areas in Tort: Illegality and Authority after Patel v Mirza

July 2026publication date
Proposal available till 13-05-2025
4 total number of authors per manuscript0 $

The title of the journal is available only for the authors who have already paid for
Journal’s subject area:
Law;
Places in the authors’ list:
place 1place 2place 3place 4
FreeFreeFreeFree
2350 $1200 $1050 $900 $
Contract №11705.1 Contract №11705.2 Contract №11705.3 Contract №11705.4
1 place - free (for sale)
2 place - free (for sale)
3 place - free (for sale)
4 place - free (for sale)

Abstract:
This comment describes and critiques the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Henderson v Dorset Healthcare University NHS Foundation Trust. It considers in particular the Courts position on the effect of Patel v Mirza on previous illegality case law. It analyses the enduring tensions between Patel and the House of Lords’ decision in Gray v Thames Trains, which the Supreme Court in Henderson upheld as enduringly authoritative notwithstanding the rearticulation of the illegality principle in Patel. It assesses the logical problems in the Supreme Courts position, and contextualises it as an attempt to mitigate Patel ‘s potentially disruptive effects on legal certainty.
Keywords:
Courts position; illegality; legal certainty; case law

Contacts :
0