'Leaving Nothing to Chance'?: Joint Tenancies, The 'Right' of Survivorship and Unilateral Severance

The joint tenancy with its inherent right of survivorship is the most prevalent form of co-ownership in the common law world today. Most couples will be joint tenants of a family home, while relations (such as siblings) who purchase property together may opt for this arrangement. Inter vivos acquisitions aside, the huge intergenerational transfer of wealth within families on death can result in a joint tenancy, and it may also be a convenient estate planning device. The fact that property automatically vests in the surviving joint tenants on death is the reason why many people choose this form of co-ownership. However, there is one serious disadvantage. A joint tenancy is an inflexible form of landholding where relationships sour or family circumstances change over time, and co-owners want their respective `shares' of the property to pass to someone else on death. Where consensual severance is not possible, one joint tenant can sever unilaterally. The latter mechanism is vital in terms of giving effect to the wishes of the severing joint tenant, especially in situations of discord or a breakdown in relations with their fellow co-owners. However, unilateral severance also has serious implications for the non-severing joint tenant(s) who expected to inherit property through survivorship, and can impact significantly on ownership of the home and other family property. This article looks at unilateral severance as a means of subverting the right of survivorship. The focus is on personal and inter-family relationships, and the various legal issues and policy considerations associated with unilateral severance across the common law jurisdictions of Britain, Ireland, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. It assesses the various methods of effecting unilateral severance and proposes specific measures, as well as considering novel arguments for preventing unilateral severance based on contractual agreements to the contrary and proprietary estoppel.

La problématique du consentement à l'arbitrage multipartite au sein des groupements de sociétés

"Mémoire présenté à la Faculté des Études supérieures En vue de l'obtention du grade de Maîtrise en droit (LL.M.) option : Droit des affaires". Ce mémoire a été accepté à l'unanimité et classé parmi les 15% des mémoires de la discipline.

Which Legal Standards Should Apply To Web-logs? The present legal position of Internet journals in the European iuris prudence in the light of the European Parliament Committee’s on Culture and Education report and Polish Supreme Court decision

The article discusses the present status of weblogs and examines whether legal standards applicable to traditional press and media should be applied to that specific forum. The analysis is based on two key documents: the Draft Report on the concentration and pluralism in the media in European Union (2007/2253(INI)) of the European Parliament Committee on Culture and Education presented in March 2008 and a landmark decision of the Polish Supreme Court from July 26, 2007 (IV KK 174/07) in the light of present judicial tendency in other European countries. The first of the mentioned documents calls for the “clarification of the legal status of different categories of weblog authors and publishers as well as disclosure of interests and voluntary labelling of weblogs”. It emphasizes that the “undetermined and unindicated status of authors and publishers of weblogs causes uncertainties regarding impartiality, reliability, source protection, applicability of ethical codes and the assignment of liability in the event of lawsuits”. The position of the European Parliament, expressed in the document, raises serious questions on the limits of freedom of thought and speech on the Internet and on the degree of acceptable state control. A recent Polish Supreme Court decision, which caused quite a stir in the Polish Internet community, seems to head in the very direction recommended by the EP Culture Committee. In a case of two editors of a web journal (“czasopismo internetowe”) called “Szyciepoprzemysku”, available on-line, accused of publishing a journal without the proper registration, the Polish Supreme Court stated that “journals and periodicals do not lose the character of a press release due solely to the fact that they appear in the form of an  Internet transmission”, and that ‘’the publishing of press in an electronic form, available on the Internet, requires  registration”. The decision was most surprising, as prior lower courts decisions declined the possibility to register Internet periodicals. The accused were acquitted in the name of the constitutional principle of the rule of law (art. 7 of the Polish Constitution) and the ensuing obligation to protect the trust of a citizen to the state (a conviction in this case would break the collateral estoppel rule), however the decision quickly awoke media frenzy and raised the fear of a need to register all websites that were regularly updated. The spokesman of the Polish Supreme Court later explained that the sentence of the Court was not intended to cause a mass registration of all Internet “periodicals” and that neither weblogs nor Internet sites, that were regularly updated, needed registration. Such an interpretation of the Polish press law did not appear clear based only on the original text of the judgment and the decision as such still raises serious practical questions. The article aims to examine the status of Internet logs as press and seeks the compromise between the concerns expressed by European authorities and the freedom of thought and speech exercised on the Internet.

Hacia la aplicación de las guías de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE) sobre precios de transferencia para empresas multinacionales y administraciones tributarias en Colombia

Los precios de transferencia ocupan el interés de los Estados en el mundo actual al constituir uno de los retos fundamentales del Derecho Internacional Tributario. En el seno de la Organización para la Cooperación y el Desarrollo Económicos (OCDE), creada en 1961, se discutieron y desarrollaron diversas propuestas para regular el fenómeno. Estas, se materializaron en Modelos de Convenios Tributarios e instrumentos de soft law, que hoy en día constituyen los principios internacionalmente aceptados en la materia. Las Guías de la OCDE sobre precios de transferencia para empresas multinacionales y administraciones tributarias son el cuerpo normativo de soft law que se erigen, en el Ordenamiento Internacional, como el norte de las legislaciones a nivel interno para efectos de regulación de dicha temática. Su adopción por parte de los países miembros y no miembros de la OCDE se enfrenta a problemas teóricos derivados del quebrantamiento del decantado principio de reserva de ley tributaria y el respeto por la seguridad jurídica, razón por la cual su incorporación ha variado de Estado a Estado. El presente trabajo recoge la experiencia en varios países europeos y latinoamericanos y pretende proponer una fórmula de adopción en Colombia, coherente con los principios constitucionales tributarios y con virtualidad de superar las críticas realizadas por la doctrina a la aplicación directa de las Guías.

Conscience, discretion and the creation of property rights

This paper considers the utility of the concept of conscience or unconscionable conduct as a contemporary rationale for intervention in two principles applied where a person seeks to renege on an informal agreement relating to land: the principle in Rochefoucauld v Boustead; and transfers 'subject to' rights in favour of a claimant. By analysing the concept in light of our current understanding of the nature of judicial discretion and the use of general principles, it responds to arguments that unconscionability is too general a concept on which to base intervention. In doing so, it considers the nature of the discretion that is actually in issue when the court intervenes through conscience in these principles. However, the paper questions the use of constructive trusts as a response to unconscionability. It argues that there is a need, in limited circumstances, to separate the finding of unconscionability from the imposition of a constructive trust. In these limited circumstances, once unconscionability is found, the courts should have a discretion as to the remedy, modelled on that developed in the context of proprietary estoppel. The message underlying this paper is that many of the concerns expressed about unconscionability that have led to suggestions of alternative rationales for intervention can in fact be addressed whilst retaining an unconscionability analysis. Unconscionability remains a preferable rationale for intervention as it provides a common thread that links apparently separate principles and can assist our understanding of their scope.

Modern American law; a systematic and comprehensive commentary on the fundamental principles of American law and procedure, accompanied by leading illustrative cases and legal forms, with a rev. ed. of Blackstone's Commentaries;

v. I. The modern democracy, the citizen and the law - Legal ethics - Law : its origin, nature, development - Courts : federal and state - Law of contracts -- v. 2. Law of torts -- v. 3. Criminal Law - Law of criminal procedure - Law of persons and domestic relations -- v. 4. Personal property and bailments - Law of liens and pledges - Law of agency - Law of sales of personal property -- v. 5. Law of real property -- v. 6. Law of descent and distribution, wills and administration, guardian and ward - Law of landlord and tenant - Law of irrigation and water rights - Law of mines and mining -- v. 7. Equity - Law of trusts - Law of quasi-contacts - Law of estoppel -- v. 8. Law of negotiable instruments - Law of suretyship and guaranty - Law of mortgages : real and chattel - Interpretation of statutes -- v. 9. Law of private corporations - Law of partnership - law of banks, banking and trust companies - Law of receivers -- v. 10. Pleadings in civil actions at common law and under modern statutes - Practice in civil actions - Law of equity pleading - Law of evidence - Laws of attachment and garnishments - Law of judgments and executions - Law of extraordinary remedies - Law of habeas corpus -- v. 11. Constitutional law : definitions and general principles - Organization and powers of the United States Government - Constitutional guaranties of fundamental rights - Eminent domain - Taxation - Naturalization -- v. 12. Conflict of laws - International law - Law of interstate commerce - Law of bankruptcy - Law of patents - Law of copyright - Law of trademarks - Unfair competition and good-will -- v. 13. Law of public service companies, especially common carriers - Law of municipal corporations - Law of public officers and elections - Parliamentary law -- v. 14. Law of damages - Law of insurance - Admiralty law - Medical jurisprudence - Forms -- v. 15. Blackstone's Commentaries.

Rehabilitating the common intention trust

Position of the common intention principle in Australia - the principle should continue to exist - evidentiary difficulties means that the principle is infrequently invoked - claimants who cannot produce sufficient evidence of a common intention may be entitled to relief via equitable estoppel or the joint endeavour principle - the doctrinal foundation of the common intention trust - alternative rationales for the common intention trust.

Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas

High Court decision in Pacific Carriers v BNP Paribas, that BNP Paribas was estopped from denying the authority of its manager to sign the documents on its behalf will be a relief to third parties who rely on documents signed for and on behalf of financial institutions - particularly to those involved in the shipping industry who seek letters of indemnity relating to discharge of cargo without production of bills of lading.