Property in body parts and products of the human body

An intriguing question, which until recently had not been directly explored by the courts, is the extent to which English law recognises body parts and products of the human body as property capable of ownership. Although the common law currently recognises no general property in a dead body (and only limited possessory rights in respect of it), this apparent “no-property rule” provides no justification, it is submitted, for denying proprietary status to parts or products of a living human body. The recent decision of the Court of Appeal in Yearworth v. North Bristol NHS Trust ([2009] EWCA Civ 37) lends strong support to the view that genetic material (as the product of a living human body) is capable of ownership, at least in the context of a claim in the tort of negligence and bailment. This article examines the various issues by reference to both English and Commonwealth authority.

Forfeiture relief

Looks at the common law forfeiture rule, preventing a person who has unlawfully killed another from profiting from the death, and the granting of relief under the Forfeiture Act 1982. Reviews case law on the forfeiture rule, its modification under s.2 in the interests of justice and the provision under s.3 that the rule does not preclude an application under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975. Reviews the Chancery Division ruling in Land v Land (Deceased), highlighting the ability for a claimant to choose whether to seek relief from forfeiture under s.2 of the 1982 Act or pursue a claim for reasonable financial provision from a deceased's estate under s.2 of the 1975 Act.

Oral agreements: estoppel, constructive trusts and restitution

Analyses the House of Lords judgment in Cobbe v Yeoman's Row Management Ltd in relation to claims by the prospective purchaser under an oral agreement for sale of a block of flats based on proprietary estoppel, a constructive trust and common law restitution brought against the owner of the property who sought to resile from the agreement after the purchaser had, at considerable expense, obtained planning permission to redevelop the property in reliance on assurances given by the owner that if permission was granted the sale would be honoured.