Your email address will be used for Wildy’s marketing materials only. We will never give your email address to any third party.
Special Discounts for Pupils, Newly Called & Students
Browse Secondhand Online
Wildy's will be closed on Monday 1st May and will re-open on Tuesday 2nd May.
Online book orders received during the time we are closed will be processed as soon as possible once we re-open on Tuesday.
As usual Credit Cards will not be charged until the order is processed and ready to despatch.
Any non-UK eBook orders placed after 5pm on the Friday 28th April will not be processed until Tuesday 2nd May. UK eBook orders will be processed as normal.
In a number of important decisions such as ""Stovin v. Wise"", ""X v. Bedfordshire"", ""Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council"" and others, English courts have been forced to contend with the important issue of tortious liability of statutory bodies.
Following the ""Hill"" decision, they opted for a wide non-liability rule on a variety of policy and economic efficiency grounds. Yet many of their arguments have been considered and rejected by both German and French courts when deciding factually equivalent situations.
This study analyses five leading English cases in a comparative and economic way, and questions the validity of their assumptions as well as their arguments in the light of the recent important decision of the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights in ""Osman v. UK"".