This thesis provides a comparative analysis of the problems of fraud and the abuse of the corporate form under UK and Nigerian company laws. The twin doctrines of separate legal personality and limited liability for members shield shareholders and directors from personal liability for the debts of the company with far reaching implications for creditors and wider society. Although this position is not immutable as demonstrated in Salomon v Salomon, an analysis of case law and statute within the general rubric of ‘lifting the veil’ or ‘piercing the veil’ in the two jurisdictions reveals that veil piercing approaches have for several reasons remained fundamentally flawed. There is no coherent principle upon which the courts may find exceptional circumstances to impose liability on shareholders and directors. Veil piercing approaches have been premised on loss allocation analysis and used only as a means to discard limited liability. No effort has been made to deny controlling shareholders and directors the benefits derived from fraud, an omission that is detrimental to the interest of creditors and thus demonstrates the need for a new approach. This thesis therefore argues that gains made by fraudulent shareholders or directors constitute an unjustified enrichment which must be disgorged for distribution to creditors. To this end, the thesis proposes a ‘responsible corporate personality model’ which gives the creditors wider rights of action to initiate claims against corporate controllers to deny or prevent wrongful benefits or proceeds of unjust enrichment when the company is insolvent or approaching insolvency. The model addresses questions such as the role of constructive trust in combating fraud, tracing, fraudulent transfer of company’s assets to third parties and obstacles imposed by the requirement of fiduciary relationship. It supports the approach to unjust enrichment, suggesting lessons for both the UK and Nigeria in order to preserve equity and prevent improper conduct of corporate controllers. A key argument is that the responsible corporate model can address certain socio-economic peculiarities of Nigeria and similar developing countries.

The principal objective of this thesis is to examine the scope of investment treaty protection against the host state’s interference with foreign investment, and to identify the frontiers of state responsibility under international investment agreements in light of the decline of expropriation and the rise of non-expropriatory standards of treatment, including the standard of national treatment, fair and equitable treatment and umbrella clauses. In making a foray into the stormy relationship between the protection of foreign investment and the host state’s freedom to intervene in the marketplace in the exercise of its regulatory functions, this study is embedded in the wider context of the ongoing debate about the design of the mechanism of investment protection as well as its function in practice. It is argued that the expropriation standard does not provide an adequate framework for determining investor claims against host states. The thesis puts forward a proposal to abandon expropriation and to adopt a unified standard of treatment based on the guarantees of non-discrimination, non-arbitrariness and due process of law.

The primary aim of this thesis is to identify a coherent legal response to the particular causal problem of the ‘evidentiary gap’. In order to do this, it is necessary to understand how the ‘evidentiary gap’ relates to causation in negligence more generally, so the thesis addresses both the nature and function of the tort of negligence as well as the role played by causation within that tort. It argues that negligence is best understood as a system of corrective justice-based interpersonal responsibility. In this account, causation has a vital role so the test of causation must be philosophically sound. Causation, however, also occupies only a limited role so analysis must draw fully on the doctrines of damage and breach which bracket the causation inquiry, as well as notions of quantification of loss. The NESS test for causation is shown to be preferable to the but-for test because it is conceptually more adequate and therefore able to address causal problems that the but-for test cannot. This thesis rejects claims for proportionate recovery based on the notion of loss of a chance of avoiding physical harm in medical negligence, but proposes limited recovery for loss of a chance as an independent form of damage arising because of unique considerations of interpersonal responsibility in the doctor-patient relationship in cases of misdiagnosis/ mistreatment of existing illness. It is argued that the Fairchild test of material contribution to risk of harm in cases of evidentiary gap is not consistent with corrective justice, and that this cannot be resolved by reconceptualising the gist of the action as the risk of harm. The Fairchild exception lacks coherence because of its instrumentalist basis, so should not be applied outside of the mesothelioma context.

The thesis analyses the use and need for involvement of external participants in the EU decision making process through the relevant instruments. The analysis begins with the Treaty of Lisbon and the observation that the principle of participation was not been retained in the text of the Treaty. At present, participation is mainly implemented by the White Paper on EU Governance; the White Paper is considered to be the starting point for the involvement of external participants as well as the use of scientific and technical knowledge in EU decision-making process. The analysis continues with the review of a myriad of communications, policies, and initiatives in this domain: for instance, the Guidelines on collection and use of expertise and the Science and society action plan are discussed in details. Better involvement has to be supported by appropriate communication and consultation policies as well as access to information and justice, the latter being implemented by the Århus Convention. This convention, which has been partially transcribed into EU law, enacts a requirement to form a qualified entity in order to be eligible to represent a public interest in the environmental field. Finally, comitology committees are recognized to be one of the legal tools to involve external participants in the EU decision-making process. Still, the scientific know-how as well as the provided expertise is non-binding; independent participation is not yet established in the EU decision-making process.

With the coming into force of the Lisbon Treaty, EU law now contains explicit references to minority rights in Article 2 TEU and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Combined with other EU norms on non-discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnic origin, and policies on culture and education, these references may be regarded as providing the preconditions for an EU regime of minority protection. This thesis investigates whether the EU should take these developments any further, and play more prominent role in protecting minorities in its Member States. This research question is addressed through four case studies on various aspects of minority protection, i.e., (1) the right to political participation, (2) the freedom to manifest religion, (3) the right to mother-tongue education, and (4) the right to autonomy. The case studies, based on examples from EU Member States (namely Latvia, Belgium and the United Kingdom), highlight that the EU could undoubtedly play a greater role in minority protection. However, instead of enacting its own rules on their protection, a more practical way forward could be for the EU to support implementation of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Member States.

The thesis examines the law of mortgages in Tanzania following the enactment of new land laws, in particular the Land Act 1999. In the study, we examine the statutory regime introduced by the Land Act. We focus on, among others, what the Act sought to address by conducting an analysis of the state of the law before its enactment, its weakness and achievement. We then comment on the way forward.

This dissertation examines the case for harmonising some national rules, relating to the law of damages and civil procedure, which are applied to national proceedings for compensation of losses resulting from breach of Articles 101 and/or 102 TFEU. Before answering whether such rules should be harmonised, the dissertation examines the broad policy rationale behind private enforcement of competition law, its goals and limits. The findings are that private enforcement plays a positive role both to compensate antitrust victims and deter undertakings from breaching competition law. This provides a sound policy for harmonisation of private enforcement rules. Subsequently, the dissertation examines the main arguments against and for harmonisation. It is argued that the case for harmonisation is more convincing than the case against. Then, the arguments for harmonisation are tested in respect of some national rules that play a pivotal role in national competition law proceedings. Although few antitrust actions are brought, it is suggested that some national rules might not comply with the EU principle of effectiveness. In addition, even if such national rules did comply with this principle, the risk of forum shopping and the problem of excessive disparity of the level playing field are likely to materialise. Thus,harmonisation of private enforcement rules is desirable.

The common law partial defence of provocation for murder was abolished and replaced by a new defence, loss of control, in the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. The thesis evaluates the reform with an analytical approach by looking at its success in resolving the problems identified with the pre-2009 law, in particular the defence being used as a platform for male violence against women and victims of domestic violence and abuse struggling to rely on the defence, and, also, looking at how the key areas of the defence are dealt with and how they ought to be framed: rationale, definition of provocation, objective element and subjective element. Through evaluating the reform many aspects are found to be deficient, including the retention of the loss of self-control concept and the sexual infidelity exclusion, and a proposal is set out which is seeks to address the main problems and make the defence effective. Specifically, two measures are advanced which tackle key concerns: a reliance on contextual evidence to support the defence in cases where the defendant was the victim of domestic violence and the use of presumptions against provoked killers in order to restrict the defence.

The thesis focuses on the scope, content, sources and applicability of the obligation aut dedere aut judicare pertaining to certain international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the prohibition of torture, drug trafficking, hijacking of civil aviation and terrorist bombing and financing of terrorism in international law. The general framework of the thesis focuses on the legal base of the obligation aut dedere aut judicare, the scope and content of the obligation, the triggering mechanisms of the duty, and state responsibility for preaches of the obligation. The relevant core crimes and transnational crimes are examined in relation to the obligation, based on and formulated in various multilateral, widely-ratified conventions and state practice. State practice and opinio juris indicate that a customary aut dedere aut judicare duty has formed or crystallized for certain international crimes such as the prohibition of torture, genocide, grave breaches of international humanitarian law, including war crimes, and crimes against humanity. As regards the offences against the safety of civil aviation and hijacking, terrorism-related crimes, international drug trafficking, and crimes against UN personnel, the evidence is mixed and it is more appropriate to conclude that an emerging custom of the obligation 'extradite-or-prosecute' for these crimes is forming.

This thesis' core aim is to develop a coherent conceptual framework for non-pecuniary loss damages in the tort of negligence. This requires an analysis of existing theoretical frameworks, a redevelopment of the 'nonpecuniary loss' concept, and the development of a new basis for the assessment of damages awards. The thesis argues that it is a mistake to preconceive of damages awards as compensatory and analogise to pecuniary losses; the different nature of non-pecuniary losses gives rises to conceptual problems and tensions with practice where this is attempted. This thesis instead separates the identification of non-pecuniary losses from the aims and assessment of damages awards, arguing that the former must be analysed first and independently. A replacement 'personal loss' concept is developed, free from the deficiencies identified and centred on binary events which raise, for a notional observer, detrimental implications about the victim's personal interests. The thesis proposes that a damages assessment based on vindication, whereby awards serve as counterstatements to those detrimental implications, can then coherently engage that personal loss concept to produce damages awards. The resulting theory is uniquely capable of justifying and providing a defensible theoretical framework for recovery for non-financial losses.