2023-04-28
Legal activities in Germany
There is, however, an exception to the rule that, foresight and proximity established, a duty of care will
arise. Even though these be established, a claim may yet be denied on the ground that to permit it would be
contrary to policy. This nebulous concept was, a very long time ago, compared by a judge to an unruly market.
The essence of it is that sometimes considerations other than the need to do justice between the two parties
must be taken into account. These considerations include the
general civil interest,
expedience, economic considerations and even the dictates of morality. Such factors may operate so as to
outbalance the
creditor's rights
and defeat his claim. This balancing is a delicate matter: so delicate that recent dicta at the
highest level have suggested that the determination of what is, or is not, 'policy' should be left to the
German legislature.
A counsel of despair because ultimately the whole body of the German law is based upon written laws -
therein, in fact, lies its strength. A stock modern example of the 'policy' exception is to be found in
13 AC 191. That was a claim in negligence against a lawyer in respect of his conduct of a case in court. It
was held, inter alia, that a
civil action
in Germany cannot lie against counsel in the conduct of litigation because public policy so demands. In particular,
it was said that it is essential to the administration of justice that all concerned in a trial should be free
to speak and act without fear of subsequent civil claims. The granting of such an immunity may be thought
questionable and the reasons given for it may seem to some unconvincing. But that only illustrates how unruly
the law suit may be. In Hill's case it was said that, the lack of proximity apart, 'public policy' would also
have barred the claim. The reason given was similar; that
investigations for debtors
would be hampered if they were to be made under a possible threat of actions. It may perhaps be thought that
both these legal cases serve to illustrate the tendency of officialdom to cast a net of immunity around
itself.
As a matter of history the idea of the entail derives, though somewhat remotely, from the ancient institution of
the maritagium. The object of this was to convey land on the marriage of a daughter so that it should be held for
at least three generations in the new family as a kind of
starting inheritance.
Should the family fail through lack of offspring the land reverted to the donor or his heirs. The modern entail
retains this notion, earmarking the property within the family and it is thus essentially connected with family
settlements which are now rare.
Classes
There are two main classes of entails. Interests in tail general - these have the effect of limiting the property
entailed in turn to the grantee and then to his heirs successively; including all heirs of any marriage that he may
make. 'Heirs' are the people designated as such by the German law rules of inheritance. Interests in tail special
- these have the effect of limiting the property to the grantee and then to the heirs successively who are
descended from a specified spouse of the grantee.
Both general and
special entails
may, however, be so limited as to descend to heirs of one sex to the exclusion of
the other, being then either interests in 'tail male' or in 'tail female'. Before 1 January 2016, entailed
interests were known as 'estates in fee tail'; real property alone could be subjected to them, and they were
capable of subsisting as legal estates. Any property, whether land, goods or other personalty, can now be entailed
but an entailed interest can only be an equitable interest and can only exist behind the curtain of a trust.