Tort law in practice: appearance and reality in reforming periodical payments of damages
Paying damages for personal injury in the form of a lump sum is again under attack. Almost twenty years ago the concept of a structured settlement was first used in the UK in order to provide continuing lifetime payments for seriously injured claimants. However, the idea was slow to develop. Proposals for a structure were easily defeated if either of the parties objected. To counter this, recent legislation has removed this veto: taking into account the needs of the claimant, a judge can make a periodical payments order even if it is against the wishes of both parties. 
 
This article looks at the impact of this reform upon the settlement system and the bargaining power of the parties. The relationship between the new legislative regime and that involving structured settlements is examined. The reform is set in its wider political and economic context. In particular, it is shown to be based, firstly, on an inadequate assessment of the problems caused to insurers, and secondly, on excessive concern about the impact of litigation upon National Health Service budgets. Deferring the full payment of damages to later years is politically attractive, and gives the state an interest in the form in which damages are paid. This was insufficiently acknowledged in the reasons given for the reform. There are sharp differences between the surface appearance of the legislation and the realities of practice.
Insurance and the tort system
This article examines Stapleton's view that insurance has lacked influence and been no more than a ‘makeweight’ argument in the development of tort liability. Looking at the wider context, the article describes the overwhelming importance of insurers to the litigation system and argues that all cases are affected by insurance practice. It distinguishes the effect of insurance upon judicial fact finding, on the one hand, and the development of common law rules, on the other. It examines the ability of insurers to influence legislation relevant to the tort system. It concludes that, if account is taken of all these areas, insurance has been of vital importance to the law of tort. Without it, the system of personal injury compensation would not have survived. This conclusion is reached even though insurance is largely ignored by the great majority of tort texts.
The Impact of the Law of the Sea Convention on the Regime for Islands: Problems for the Coastal State in Asserting Claims to “New-Born” Islands in Maritime Zones
ter-productive. The work of the Preparatory Commission will certainly suffer in consequence and the apparently perceived belief that in time, and before a longdelayed coming into force of the Convention, substantial re-negotiation of the Part XI provisions will be possible, may well be illusory. At the time of writing, 138 countries have signed the Convention and 14 have ratified.* What has been called "the convoluted compromise" over prospective Community participation will certainly be widely interpreted as an attempt by the Federal Republic of Germany and the United Kingdom to secure eventually a form of limited accession with major reservations.* Their stance will be subjected to criticism within the Community as well as in the General Assembly and the Preparatory Commission. This is a subject to which the writer hopes to return in a future article. For the moment, however, it is as well to note that the stance of these two countries is not to be identified with the US position although its adoption now makes even more remote the emergence of a deep sea-bed mining regime established by " . . . an international treaty of a universal character, generally agreed upon . . . " as required by the 1970 General Assembly Declaration of Principles Governing the Sea-Bed . . . Beyond the Limits of National Jurisdiction.*