Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in Private Law

Pauline Ridge, Joachim Dietrich

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

This article concerns recent challenges to the utility of “accessory liability” as an organising principle or concept in private law and argues that accessory liability is a coherent body of law with common features that is worthy of separate, holistic treatment. We defend a conceptual framework for accessory liability which is dynamic in its operation and which does not dictate the precise legal content of accessory liability in different contexts. Such a conception of accessory liability has come under challenge from recent cases and commentary which either minimise the scope and analytical relevance of accessory liability altogether in equity and tort law or propound a conceptual framework for accessory liability that is fixed in its application and uniform in its content across the whole of private law. Our purpose in this article is to resist both the dismissal, and simplification, of accessory liability in private law.

Original languageEnglish
Number of pages26
JournalCambridge Law Journal
DOIs
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 22 Apr 2019

Fingerprint

private law
liability
dismissal
Law
equity

Cite this

@article{32d4f5db5d054238aca7b180798cfced,
title = "Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in Private Law",
abstract = "This article concerns recent challenges to the utility of “accessory liability” as an organising principle or concept in private law and argues that accessory liability is a coherent body of law with common features that is worthy of separate, holistic treatment. We defend a conceptual framework for accessory liability which is dynamic in its operation and which does not dictate the precise legal content of accessory liability in different contexts. Such a conception of accessory liability has come under challenge from recent cases and commentary which either minimise the scope and analytical relevance of accessory liability altogether in equity and tort law or propound a conceptual framework for accessory liability that is fixed in its application and uniform in its content across the whole of private law. Our purpose in this article is to resist both the dismissal, and simplification, of accessory liability in private law.",
author = "Pauline Ridge and Joachim Dietrich",
year = "2019",
month = "4",
day = "22",
doi = "10.1017/S0008197319000345",
language = "English",
journal = "Cambridge Law Journal",
issn = "0008-1973",
publisher = "Stevens & Sons",

}

Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in Private Law. / Ridge, Pauline; Dietrich, Joachim.

In: Cambridge Law Journal, 22.04.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Challenging Conceptions of Accessory Liability in Private Law

AU - Ridge, Pauline

AU - Dietrich, Joachim

PY - 2019/4/22

Y1 - 2019/4/22

N2 - This article concerns recent challenges to the utility of “accessory liability” as an organising principle or concept in private law and argues that accessory liability is a coherent body of law with common features that is worthy of separate, holistic treatment. We defend a conceptual framework for accessory liability which is dynamic in its operation and which does not dictate the precise legal content of accessory liability in different contexts. Such a conception of accessory liability has come under challenge from recent cases and commentary which either minimise the scope and analytical relevance of accessory liability altogether in equity and tort law or propound a conceptual framework for accessory liability that is fixed in its application and uniform in its content across the whole of private law. Our purpose in this article is to resist both the dismissal, and simplification, of accessory liability in private law.

AB - This article concerns recent challenges to the utility of “accessory liability” as an organising principle or concept in private law and argues that accessory liability is a coherent body of law with common features that is worthy of separate, holistic treatment. We defend a conceptual framework for accessory liability which is dynamic in its operation and which does not dictate the precise legal content of accessory liability in different contexts. Such a conception of accessory liability has come under challenge from recent cases and commentary which either minimise the scope and analytical relevance of accessory liability altogether in equity and tort law or propound a conceptual framework for accessory liability that is fixed in its application and uniform in its content across the whole of private law. Our purpose in this article is to resist both the dismissal, and simplification, of accessory liability in private law.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065241717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0008197319000345

DO - 10.1017/S0008197319000345

M3 - Article

JO - Cambridge Law Journal

JF - Cambridge Law Journal

SN - 0008-1973

ER -