Log in
With over 130,000 insolvencies (corporate and personal) recorded annually in England and Wales insolvency is a significant area of legal practice. This study spotlights one major publication (Sealy and Milman: Annotated Guide to Insolvency Legislation) which has informed, and is informed by, other scholarly pieces. Evidence is offered of this publication's reach, indicating how it has developed into an authoritative legal source in its own right. Users of the research include lawyers advising/representing their clients, repeat players (such as HMRC) and judges dealing with issues of interpretation. These groups benefit by having professional time saved in researching points and by having something to base advice or a decision upon when there is no available precedent. The ultimate beneficiaries are the public who rely on legal advice and whose rights depend upon favourable judicial rulings.
Olowofoyeku's research on judicial accountability challenges long-established norms in the Anglo- American legal traditions. These challenges have been recognised by judicial authorities at the highest levels and have influenced and informed practitioner and judicial debates on the matter. While no changes have yet been made to the law as a result of this research, the limits of the current principles, as highlighted in Olowofoyeku's research, particularly in respect of the flaws of the common law construct of the informed observer, have been confronted and recognised by judges in their decisions, and also by practitioners.
Research by the Centre for Business and Insolvency Law is helping to increase investor confidence and economic stability through influence on laws in Africa and practice in the UK.
Integrating developing countries into the global economy and encouraging investment require sound legal infrastructure, with modern insolvency laws that increase investor confidence over likely outcomes of financial crisis. Burdette's research has directly influenced Seychelles legislation, legislation currently before parliament in Malawi and insolvency practice in South Africa.
Robust insolvency laws are also important for maintaining a stable domestic economy. Walters (with external co-authors) has influenced public debate regarding costs in insolvency.
Researchers, led by Seneviratne, have long influenced debate and had impacts in practice within various dispute resolution frameworks. Seneviratne's work on the civil litigation system (with Peysner), has had broad and significant influence in reviews of civil justice systems internationally, as has Peysner's other research undertaken at this UoA. Seneviratne's work on insolvency complaints and disciplinary procedures (with Walters) has had real influence in informing both domestic Parliamentary and international debate regarding insolvency practitioner regulation.
Professor Adrian Keane's research relates to the law of criminal evidence, that body of law which regulates the means by which facts can be proved in criminal trials. His publications on the subject have effected change and benefited the awareness, capacity, performance and understanding of the subject on the part of:
(i) the judiciary in the UK and internationally, in reaching decisions at both first instance and at appellate level; and in giving directions to juries on evidential issues that are as clear and consistent as possible
(ii) legal practitioners
(iii) law academics and students (an impact that extends significantly beyond the submitting higher education institution)
(iv) legislators in the People's Republic of China.
The most significant impact stems from participation in a project in Beijing that led directly to a revised Criminal Procedure Law that has improved the quality of the administration of Chinese criminal justice. Specifically, it has rendered criminal trials fairer to the accused and reduced the potential for miscarriages of justice, especially in relation to offences carrying the death penalty.
Masson's three linked studies of the operation of child protection proceedings led to changes in the ways in which the courts handle the 10,500 care proceedings annually concerning around 18,000 children in England and Wales. The findings from the research have directly impacted in three ways: on the Family Justice Review as well as the design and implementation of the 2013 reforms to care proceedings to reduce their cost and duration; through changes in local authority pre-proceedings practice; and on the better collation of statistics concerning care proceedings by court administrative staff. The research made an important contribution to the reduction in the average length of such proceedings from 55 weeks to 37 weeks between 2011 and 2013
The impact detailed here demonstrates how, through his work with Historic Royal Palaces and Goat and Monkey and Schtanhaus theatre companies, Professor Tom Betteridge has helped to inform and influence the relationship between historical, literary and performance-based research with visitor experience at a major heritage site. Through the research-led collaboration between Oxford Brookes and Edinburgh Universities, Betteridge has enhanced public interaction with Tudor dramatic culture, developed visitors' imaginative appreciation of Tudor cultural history and produced new modes of visitor and audience engagement. This work has enriched visitor numbers at Hampton Court Palace and also contributed to Historic Royal Palaces' research policies and public engagement strategy.
An extensive body of research by Adrian Zuckerman has resulted in a significant improvement in the management of civil trials in England and Wales, and therefore to an improvement in access to justice for litigants. Zuckerman made a sustained argument that litigants are entitled only to a fair share of court resources, and not to an excessive share. His critical defence of this view changed the courts' use of their powers under the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (CPR), and persuaded the Civil Procedure Rules Committee to change the rules themselves, regarding sanctions for failure to comply with procedural rules and court orders. The result is an important move toward the approach that Zuckerman has advocated: that parties should not be allowed to depart from deadlines imposed by rules and court orders unless they could not reasonably have complied in time, or had good reasons for the default.
The Feminist Judgments Project put theory into practice by engaging in a real world exercise of writing feminist judgments in leading cases in English law. In doing so it demonstrated the value of judicial diversity, the extent to which women's experiences and concerns continue to be poorly reflected in law, and the contingency of appellate decision-making. It has had a significant impact in three major ways. First, it has made an important contribution to policy debates regarding the value of judicial diversity; second, it has raised awareness and understanding among judges, legal professionals, NGOs and the wider public of the contribution of a feminist approach to judicial decision-making; and, third, it has had far-reaching benefits for teachers and students, both in the UK and internationally. While the FJP was a highly collaborative project (deriving much strength from this fact), Professor Hunter's research played a distinct and major role in shaping it and she jointly led and co-ordinated its activities from Kent. Other Kent scholars contributed judgments and commentaries.
Professor Enonchong's research has had a direct and significant effect on the development of the law relating to economic duress in Singapore and the Commonwealth. Prior to the relevant impact, the law relating to lawful act duress was in a state of flux. The High Court of Singapore relied directly and exclusively on Enonchong's research to extend the scope of duress in a completely novel way, so as to encompass a threat to do an act that is lawful. The beneficiaries of the impact are all those (such as courts, arbitral tribunals, lawyers and their clients) who rely on the law of Singapore, which is influential throughout the Commonwealth, particularly as currently there is no decision on the point in other Commonwealth jurisdictions.