Can grassroots organisations and NGOs substitute for the State in Russia? A review of the literature and suggestions for a future research agenda

The paper investigates the relationship between civil society and the state. Using the unique lens of the state-substitution (the process whereby civil society organisations take on government roles) the paper reviews the literature and highlights three key issues: - Civil society is weak in Russia and its contribution to democracy development is limited - The Russian State has be withdrawing from its responsibilities to care for its citizens, leaving a field of opportunity for civil society organisations. - The state has subsequently began to encroach on civil society organisations mainly through the use of legislative changes and government sponsored organisations These trends have far reaching implications for civil society organisations, in particular those which take up or take over government roles and responsibilities. The literary evidence shows that the Russian state leverages its political power into the sphere of civil society similar to how it regained control over the economy in the early 2000s. This Russian variant of civil society attributes the state as a key player in all societal spheres.

Rescission and substitute property:Bainbridge v Bainbridge [2016] EWHC 898 (Ch)

One of the unresolved issues concerning equity’s jurisdiction to set aside dispositions for mistake is the nature of the proprietary consequences that ensue. The decision in Bainbridge v Bainbridge sheds further light on this important issue, but also illustrates that some important aspects concerning the application of rescission needs further clarification. The key issue concerned the rescission of a trust, where parts of the land had been sold by the trustees who had used the proceeds of sale to buy two new plots of land. Part of the reasoning used by Master Matthews relied upon authorities, developed in the context of fraudulently induced transfers of money, which requires careful consideration of the relationship between the principle in Pitt v Holt and unjust enrichment.