Notes

• [1]
  [1970] 2 Q.B. 40, 42.
• [2]
  1975] Q.B. 326, 334. V. aussi Miller v. Jackson [1977] Q.B. 966, 976 : “In summertime village cricket is the delight of everyone.”
• [3]
  Reserve thy Judgment — The Technique of Judgment-Writing (Northern Ireland Judicial Studies Board Address) : “The result is an idiosyncratic product, highly individual at times — one can recognise a judgment written by Lord Denning or Laws LJ at twenty paces — which will often reflect the personality and cast of thought of the writer.”
• [4]
  E.g., Smedley’s Ltd. v. Breed [1977] 3 All E.R. 338, 340 per Lord Hailsham.
• [5]
  E.g., Fisher v. Brooker [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1764, 1771 per Baroness Hale of Richmond.
• [6]
  E.g., R v. Reiter [1954] 2 Q.B. 16, 19 per Lord Goddard, C.J. (George Eliot et Anthony Trollope).
• [7]
  E.g., Chambers v. D.P.P. [2012] EWHC 2157 (Admin) à [28] per Lord Judge, C.J. (Shakespeare).
• [8]
  Oxfordshire County Council v. Oxford City Council [2006] 2 W.L.R. 1235 à [3] per Lord Hoffmann (Goldsnith).
• [9]
  E.g., R v. Bradley [2005] 1 Cr. App. R. 24 à [39] per Rose, L.J., V.P.
• [10]
  E.g., R (Cooper) v. Work & Pensions Secretary [2011] 1 W.L.R. 1723 à [50] per Smith, L.J.
• [11]
  E.g., Lees Service plc v. Customs and Excise Commissioners [2004] 1 W.L.R. 1 à [4] per Lord Millett.
• [12]
  [2010] EWHC 3199 (Comm).
• [13]
  E.g., Jones v. Jones [2011] 3 W.L.R. 482 à [3] per Wilson, L.J. : “It has 484 paragraphs. An article on the judgment, A Judicial Safari Tour of Ancillary Relief : J v J by Mr Ashley Murray of counsel, has recently been published in (2010) 40 Family Law, p 1111. Mr Murray introduced his article : ’There are certain challenges each of us should attempt in our lifetime and for most these involve a particular jump, a mountain climb, etc. Akin to these in the legal world would be reading from first to last a judgment of Charles J. One of his most recent is J v J...’ Mr Murray’s introductory sentences were witty and brave. In respect at any rate of the judgment in the present case, they were also, I am sorry to say, apposite. The judgment is a monument to the intellectual energy of the judge. Nevertheless, notwithstanding my extreme personal discomfort in saying so, I feel driven to describe it as far too long, too discursive and too unwieldy. …”
• [14]
  [2012] EWCA Crim 1456 at [1] per Lord Judge, C.J. Donc, nous savons que le président, Lord Judge, a rédigé les paragraphes [1] à [12], le juge Irwin les paragraphes [13] à [28], et le juge Openshaw les paragraphes [29] à [40].
• [15]
  [1966] 1 Q.B. 716, 730 : “After all that is the beauty of the common law; it is a maze and not a motorway.”
• [16]
  [1932] A.C. 161.
• [17]
  Le Viscomte Hailsham avait indiqué qu’il se rangeait avec le jugement minoritaire du Lord Warrington of Clyffe.
• [18]
  [1950] 1 K.B. 671, 691 : “The correct interpretation of that case, to my mind, is that, once a contract has been made, that is to say, once the parties, whatever their inmost states of mind, have to all outward appearances agreed with sufficient certainty in the same terms on the same subject matter, then the contract is good unless and until it is set aside for failure of some condition on which the existence of the contract depends, or for fraud, or on some equitable ground. Neither party can rely or his own mistake to say it was a nullity from the beginning, no matter that it was a mistake which to his mind was fundamental, and no matter that the other party knew that he was under a mistake.”
• [19]
  [2003] Q.B. 679 à [76] : “[T]he following elements must be present if common mistake is to avoid a contract : (i) there must be a common assumption as to the existence of a state of affairs; (ii) there must be no warranty by either party that that state of affairs exists; (iii) the non-existence of the state of affairs must not be attributable to the fault of either party; (iv) the non-existence of the state of affairs must render performance of the contract impossible; (v) the state of affairs may be the existence, or a vital attribute, of the consideration to be provided or circumstances which must subsist if performance of the contractual adventure is to be possible.” V., e.g., EIC Services Ltd v. Phipps [2003] 1 W.L.R. 2360 à [157] per Neuberger, J. ; Shuttari v Solicitors Indemnity Fund Ltd. [2005] EWHC 2858 (Ch) à [47] per L. Henderson QC; Standard Chartered Bank v Banque Marocaine Du Commerce Exterieur [2006] EWHC 413 (Ch) à [26] per Gloster, J; Kyle Bay Limited (t/a Astons Nightclub) v Underwriters Subscribing under Policy n° 019057/08/01 [2006] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 718 à [35] per Jonathan Hirst QC; Apvodedo NV v. Collins [2008] EWHC 775 (Ch) à [35] per Henderson, J.; Butters v. BBC Worldwide Ltd [2009] B.P. I.R. 1315 à [66] per Peter Smith, J., etc.
• [20]
  [1962] A.C. 413.
• [21]
  Comme a déclaré Asquith, L.J. dans l’arrêt Howard v. Pickford Tool Co. Ltd. [1951] 1 K.B. 417, 421 : “an unaccepted repudiation is a thing writ in water and of no value to anybody.”
• [22]
  V. Hounslow LBC v. Twickenham Garden Developments Ltd. [1971] Ch. 233; Clea Shipping Corp. v. Bulk Oil International Ltd. (The Atlantic Trader) [1984] 1 All E.R. 129.
• [23]
  [2011] UKSC 12, [2012] 1 A.C. 245.
• [24]
  Dans cette hypothèse il est probable que la situation aurait nécessité une application de la maxime, semperpraesumitur pro negante.
• [25]
  [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1333.
• [26]
  [2010] EWHC 1935 (Ch.)
• [27]
  [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1333 at [103] - [116].
• [28]
  “The case was not relied upon by any of the parties before us, and indeed was not referred to by them or by [Vos, J.]. It is in many ways a difficult and unsatisfactory case” : ibid. at [115].
• [29]
  Ibid. at [187].
• [30]
  E.g., American Reliable Insurance Ltd. v. Willis Ltd. [2008] EWHC 2677 (Comm); JSC BTA Bank v. Solodchenko (n° 2) [2011] 1 W.L.R. 906.
• [31]
  E.g., Coopers Payen Ltd. v. Southampton Container Terminal Ltd. [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 331; R (Crown Prosecution Service) v. Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths [2003] Q.B. 1222.
• [32]
  Phillips v. Perry [1997] EWCA Civ 1176per Collins, J.
• [33]
  E.g., Lawrence v. Fen Tigers Ltd. [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2127.
• [34]
  E.g., Lucasfilm Ltd. v. Ainsworth [2011] 3 W.L.R. 491.
• [35]
  V. Roderick Munday, “Fish with Feathers : English Judgments with Footnotes “ (2006) 170 J.P.N. 444; Judicial Footnotes : A Footnote (with Footnotes) (2006) 170 J.P.N. 864.
• [36]
  Zarb v. Parry [2012] 1 W.L.R. 1240, [54]-[59] per Arden, L.J.
• [37]
  V. Adolphe Touffait et André Tunc, “Pour une motivation plus explicite des décisions de justice, notamment celles de la Cour de Cassation”, RTDCiv. 1974, p. 487.
• [38]
  Roderick Munday, “ All for One, and One for All : The Rise to Prominence of the Composite Judgment “, in the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal [2002] C.L.J. 321.
• [39]
  Roderick Munday, “ The ’Official’ Law Reports “ (2001) 165 J.P.N. 162.
• [40]
  Roderick Munday, “ Reasoning without Dissent ; Dissenting without Reason “ (2004) 168 J.P.N. 968 and 991.
• [41]
  Roderick Munday, “ All for One, and One for All, supra; Judicial Configurations : Permutations of the Court and Properties of Judgment “ [2002] C.L.J. 612; “ Suppressing Dissent “ (2008) 172 J.P.N. 830; “ Judicial Opinion and Dissenting Opinion : A Paean to Dissent “ in Odûvodnënt soudního ro-zhodnutí/ The Judicial Opinion / Begründung von Gerichtsentscheidung (2011 : Prague, Centra Právni Komparatistiky Právnické Fakulty Univerzity Karlovy v Praze) p. 51; ’Configuring Reason’ in Stefan Vogenauer & Hans Andenas (eds.), The Form of Judgment (2013 : Oxford, Hart Publishing, forthcoming).
• [42]
  L’on peut supposer que tous les cas d’espèces qui sont jugés par la Cour Suprême sont d’une certaine importance étant donné que ce tribunal n’entend qu’à peu près 70 litiges par an. Mais même dans cette atmosphère juridique raréfiée l’importance des principes en jeu peut varier.
• [43]
  [2011] UKSC 6; [2011] 2 A.C. 104.
• [44]
  [2011] UKSC 12; [2012] 1 A.C. 245.
• [45]
  [2011] UKSC 13; [2011] 2 A.C. 398.
• [46]
  [2011] UKSC 10; [2011] 2 A.C. 229.
• [47]
  [2011] UKSC 8; [2011] 2 A.C. 186.
• [48]
  E.g., Re T (Children)(Care Proceedings : Costs) [2012] UKSC 36, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2281; Summers v. Fairclough Homes Ltd. [2012] UKSC 26, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2004.
• [49]
  E.g., R (Alvi) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 33, [2012] 1 W.L.R. 2208.
• [50]
  E.g., RT (Zimbabwe) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] UKSC 38, [2012] 3 W.L.R. 345. Ou bien trois juges peuvent partager un jugement collégial tandis que les quatre autres membres du tribunal indiquent tout simplement leur concurrence dans quatre petits jugements personnels : H v. Lord Advocate [2012] UKSC 24, [2012] 3 W.L.R. 151.
• [51]
  [2010] UKSC 20; [2011] 1 A.C. 437.
• [52]
  Insolvency, Internationalism and Supreme Court Judgments : Discours prononcé le 16 novembre 2009, publié sous le titre The International Dimension of Insolvency (2010) 23 Insolvency Intelligence 42.
• [53]
  V. surtout Gerald J. Postema, Bentham and the Common Law Tradition (1986 : Oxford : Clarendon Press).
• [54]
  [1951] 2 K.B. 164.
• [55]
  [1964] A.C. 465.
• [56]
  V. Kansal (n° 2) [2001] 3 W.L.R. 1562 à [30] per Lord Hope of Craighead.
• [57]
  Parliamentary Papers, House of Lords 1856, (46) xxiv Q. 24, 25, 35, 339, 590, 784.
• [58]
  V. Aidan O’Neill QC, “ Judicial Politics and the Judicial Committee : The Devolution Jurisprudence of the Privy Council ” (2001) 64 M.L.R. 603; “ Judicial Politics in the Judicial Committee ” (2001) 46 Journal of the Law Society of Scotland 17.
• [59]
  V. S. Barclay, An Appealing Act : Why People Appeal in Civil Cases (1999, Evanston (Ill.) : Northwestern University Press; The American Bar Foundation)
• [60]
  E.g., Sir Basil Markesinis, A Matter of Style (1994) 110 L.Q.R. 607; Hein Kötz, ‘Scholarship and the Courts : A Comparative Survey’ dans D.S. Clark (ed.), Comparative and Private International Law : Essays in Honor of John Henry Merryman on his Seventieth Birthday (1990, Berlin : Duncker & Hum-blot) pp. 183ff.; Sir Basil Markesinis, “ Judicial Style and Judicial Reasoning in England and Germany ” [2000] C.L.J. 294.
• [61]
  “ La collégialité est-elle une garantie de la sûreté des jugements ? Réflexions sur un exercice d’école,” Rev. trim. dr. civ. 1992.532.
• [62]
  V. e.g., Maurice Garçon, Lettre ouverte à la justice (1966 : Paris, Albin Michel) pp. 71-3.
• [63]
  François Gorphe, Les décisions de justice. Étude psychologique et judiciaire (1952 : Paris, Sirey) pp. 39 and 163.
• [64]
  Motiver, dans le sens que généralement ils prêtaient plus d’attention aux questions telles que la protection de la santé et de la sécurité de l’enfant, le souci de son intégration sociale, la préservation des relations parents-enfant, la question de l’hygiène mentale infantile, le respect de la culture étrangère, l’autorité parentale, et la défense de l’ordre public.
• [65]
  Rev. trim. dr. civ. 1992, p. 536.
• [66]
  Ces observations provoquent une autre réflexion. A la différence du système juridique français, en Angleterre il n’existe pas de juges de carrière. Pour la plupart les quelques centaines de juristes anglais qui deviendront juges auront auparavant exercé une carrière d’avocat ou de solicitor (en quelque sorte, l’équivalent des avoués français d’antan) pendant 20, 25 ans. Pourrait-on même conclure que cette expérience que les juristes anglais auront gagnée au barreau ou dans leurs études juridiques leur fournit une largeur d’esprit et une vision qui informent leurs jugements une fois qu’ils se trouvent membres de la magistrature ?
• [67]
  Rev. trim. dr. civ. 1992, p. 537.
• [68]
  Ibid., pp. 537-8.
• [69]
  V. Mary Arden, Judgment Writing : Are Shorter Judgments Achievable ? (2012) 128 L.Q.R. 515.
• [70]
  Les contributions seront publiées dans Mads Andenas et Stefan Vogenauer (eds.), The Form of Judgment (2012 : Oxford, Hart Publishing.)
• [71]
  Kay v Lambeth L.B.C. [2006] 2 A.C. 465.
• [72]
  [2007] H.L.R. 32 à [62].
• [73]
  V. Roderick Munday, “ Reasoning without Dissent; Dissenting without Reason ” (2004) 168 J.P.N. 968 et 991. Les décisions de la Cour Suprême ont été analysées par Mads Andenas et Duncan Fair-grieve, Simply a Matter of Style ? Comparing Judicial Decisions (à paraître).
• [74]
  Groupe de travail sur la rédaction des décisions de la juridiction administrative (2012 : Paris, Conseil d’État.)
• [75]
  E.g., Wolfgang Ernst, “ Abstimmen über Rechtserkenntis ” JZ 2012, 637-48.