Justifying partial rescission in English law

Jill Poole, Andrew Keyser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Comments on the refusal of the English courts to recognise the existence of a remedy of partial rescission, suggesting that in certain restricted instances justification exists for the grant of such a remedy. Considers the nature of the remedy of rescission under English law, the English courts' approach towards partial rescission and the nature and scope of the discretions available to the courts, noting the decisions in TSB Bank Plc v Camfield and De Molestina v Ponton. Reviews the historical origins of the remedy of rescission, including the distinction between fraudulent and non fraudulent misrepresentation and the origins of the so called concurrent and auxiliary equitable jurisdictions. Compares the approach of the Australian courts and highlights examples of recognition of partial rescission under international law.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)273-299
Number of pages27
JournalLaw Quarterly Review
Issue numberApril
Publication statusPublished - 2005


  • government regulation
  • law
  • rescission
  • regulations
  • rules
  • Australia
  • equitable remedies
  • misrepresentation


Dive into the research topics of 'Justifying partial rescission in English law'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this