17 November 2021

Pragmatism

'The Human Pared Away: Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell as an Archetype of Legal Pragmatism' by David Kenny in (2020) Law and Literature comments 

Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall trilogy are iconic pieces of literature, but also represent a hugely insightful commentary on the law. Her protagonist, Thomas Cromwell, is the archetype of a philosophical legal pragmatist: willing to use the law and its language to achieve his ends, but regarding adherence to any principled or abstract account of the law as misleading and even dangerous. With striking parallels to the pragmatist philosophy of William James, Richard Rorty, Richard Posner and others, Mantel's Cromwell illustrates both the promise of legal pragmatism—its ability to get results without false compunction about means—but also its dangers: that one may pick the wrong prince, or make flawed or base calculations on how to act. The Wolf Hall trilogy shows this in a manner far more clear and far more vivid than any purely philosophical accounts, and capture something deep about the theory and practice of law. As such, their commentary on the law, authority and governance deserves our close attention.

Kenny states

Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall trilogy is not, in a direct sense, about law. It is about the politics of the Tudor court: the intrigue, the plotting, the struggles for influence and power. It is about the whims and vicissitudes of Henry VIII, and the incredible competence and brilliance of his chief minister, Thomas Cromwell, in carrying them out. But law looms large in the books: Cromwell is a lawyer, in self-image and self-presentation, and law is the primary tool he wields in executing his schemes and stratagems to do Henry’s will. But his respect for the law seems, from some perspectives, to be severely lacking. He bends the law—fudges it, manipulates it, cynically exploits it—to achieve his ends. In short, he is unprincipled in his use of the law. 

In other works of fiction—most famously, a Man for All Seasons — the author clearly wants our sympathies set against the unprincipled Cromwell and with the saintly Thomas Moore, whose respect for principle is so unmatched that it costs him his head. Mantel’s vision is very different. First, in Mantel’s telling, Cromwell — while being unprincipled in his use of the law — has a clear, deep, abiding respect for the law. He believes it to be extremely important that the law is respected, obeyed and upheld, even at the same moment he is manipulating it to get his way. He is wedded to law’s appearance—its form, its seeming coherence—and to preserving the respect which it is owed, while seemingly agnostic as to its substance. This is a complexity that Bolt’s play entirely lacks. 

Secondly, Mantel’s portrait of Cromwell is deeply sympathetic. He is our protagonist. We are in Cromwell’s head - the present tense prose making ancient events feel immediate - and are with him through his brilliant execution of the will of the king. We are on his side, and his unprincipled actions start to make sense to us, even as he effectively frames Henry’s wife and courtiers for treason. Mantel’s account seems to justify Cromwell, for the most part, or at least to explain him. 

It is my case that Cromwell’s use of the law in Mantel’s novels are coherent and justifiable, from a certain point of view: the viewpoint of philosophical pragmatism as applied to the law, or legal pragmatism. This philosophy, found in the writings of Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, Richard Posner and others, is derived from the “American pragmatism” of Dewey and James, and makes the case for not adhering to principles but focussing on outcomes. It requires you to set your highest goals, and to do whatever you need to do to bring them about, calculating the worth of particular actions not by principled accounts of their rightness but by their effects. Principles, on this view, are meaningless abstractions that get in the way, muddy the water, and distract you from your goals. The pragmatist, William James tell us

turns away from obstruction and insufficiency, from verbal solutions, from a priori reasons, from fixed principles, closed systems, and pretend absolutes and origins. He turns towards concreteness and adequacy, towards facts, towards action, and towards power. 

He is against “going by principles”; his optimism “is apt to be decidedly conditional and tremulous”; he is “hard headed” or “tough minded”; he is a fatalist in respect of free will. These traits, as we shall see, perfectly describe Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell. 

Many lawyers, whether framing it in philosophical language or not, come to view the law in this way. It is often interpreted as cynicism, but this is not necessarily so. It does not mean that you have no limits, that you will do anything. It rather means that, having set your priorities and highest values, nothing is a priori off the table to achieve them: all things must be considered in context, and if you think the outcome is so important that it worth the cost, you should take the action without regard to principles that are, in the end, without meaning. 

By these lights, Cromwell’s actions are almost all either justified or potentially justifiable on the basis of upholding his priorities: to serve the will of his master, and to be true to God. In the end, when these priorities begin to clash, Cromwell has to choose between them. But if there is fault in Cromwell’s actions, the fault is in his king’s desires, or in what Cromwell might call “base calculation” - misjudging the pragmatic balance on which actions are necessary and appropriate. Cromwell is an archetype of legal pragmatism, and Mantel’s account paints clearly the merits of this approach when Cromwell excels, and its dangers when he veers into error. 

In Part I, I explore philosophical pragmatism, setting out its case against abstraction and principle, and its application to law, where it counsels adherence to form and use of principles only as rhetorical tools to achieve legal ends. Part II describes Cromwell’s pragmatist world view, which maps perfectly onto James’ and Dewey’s: based on an epistemological uncertainty, but armed with his experience and knowledge of the world, Cromwell will act in a profoundly unprincipled way to achieve his ends. He does not care about principle or consistency, only results and effects. In Part III, I examine how this pragmatism relates to lawyers in the world of Hilary Mantel, and the power law has in spite of—and indeed because of—the ability of lawyers to manipulate it and spin stories to achieve their ends. This shows the power of the legal pragmatist’s approach, facilitating as it does Cromwell’s exceptional competence. In Part IV, I examine how Cromwell’s mistakes in the books—in particular, his bloody and vindictive killing of Henry’s courtiers as Anne Boleyn’s alleged loves, and his equivocation between different masters that leads to his downfall—show the problems of legal pragmatism: that you can pick the wrong prince, devote yourself to the wrong objectives, or engage in base calculation, making judgments that are (by some measure) ultimately prove incorrect. In this, the books show us both the promise and the perils of legal pragmatism. 

Mantel, who studied law at the LSE and Sheffield, reaches the heart of the law and what it is to be a lawyer: to both respect it and manipulate it all at once; to circumvent its restrictions while insisting you are not; to construct a new path as you walk along it and insist it was there all along. To understand Cromwell as she paints him is to understand this view of the law all the way down. Her books are masterpieces of law and literature that merit our close attention.

Platforms

'A Web of Paradoxes: Empirical Evidence on Online Platform Users and Implications for Competition and Regulation in Digital Markets' by Pinar Akman in (Forthcoming) Virginia Law and Business Review (2022) comments 

This article presents and analyses the results of a large-scale empirical study in which over 11,000 consumers from ten countries in five continents were surveyed about their use, perceptions and understanding of online platform services. To the author’s knowledge, this is the first cross-continental, multi-platform empirical study of users of online platform services of its kind. Amongst others, the study probed platform users about their multi-homing and switching behaviour; engagement with defaults; perceptions of quality, choice, and well-being; attitudes towards targeted advertising; understanding of basic platform operations and business models; and, valuations of “free” platform services. The empirical evidence from the consumer demand side of some of the most popular multi-sided platforms reveals a web of paradoxes that needs to be navigated by policymakers and legislatures to reach evidence-led solutions for better-functioning and more competitive digital markets. This article contributes to literature and policy by, first, providing a multitude of novel empirical findings and, second, analysing those findings and their policy implications, particularly regarding competition and regulation in digital markets. These contributions can inform policies, regulation, and enforcement choices in digital markets that involve services used daily by billions of consumers and are subjected to intense scrutiny, globally.

15 November 2021

EPAs

The Communique from the 12 November Meeting of Attorneys-General (MAG) notes among other things  

Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) Law Reform 

Participants noted feedback received during public consultation that law reform is needed to effectively reduce financial elder abuse involving enduring powers of attorney, and tasked officials to develop recommendations and a timetable for a more nationally consistent approach, for consideration by Attorneys-General by the end of 2022. 

Protecting Older Australians – National Register of Enduring Powers of Attorney 

Participants tasked officials to consider alternative models for the National Register of Enduring Powers of Attorney, informed by stakeholder consultation, for Attorneys-General consideration and agreement by the end of 2022.

MAG's Work priorities for 2022 are - 

 Participants agreed that the work program priorities for 2022 will comprise the following: 

a) Enduring Powers of Attorney (Cth) 

b) Model defamation provisions (NSW) 

c) Access scheme for digital records after death or incapacity (NSW) - foreshadowed here.

Pleadings

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited v Ashcroft & Ors [2021] QSC 293, one of those judgments that delight law students. 

 Martin J states

 [1] The applicant, Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (“ANZ”), seeks leave to further amend its Amended Originating Application filed on 29 January 2021. 

[2] The action arises out of a series of self-inflicted injuries suffered by ANZ, which have been exacerbated by the clumsiness of its attempts to stanch those wounds. 

Ouch! 

A brief history 

[3] In 2008, Ms Ashcroft granted a mortgage (“the first mortgage”) over her property at Norman Park to ANZ to secure the loan which the ANZ had extended to her in the sum of $270,000. Later that year, ANZ provided a further loan to Ms Ashcroft in the sum of about $700,000. The loan secured by the first mortgage was repaid by the second loan which, in turn, was secured by another mortgage (“the second mortgage”). 

[4] In 2012, the terms of the loan were altered to reflect the extension of further credit by ANZ. 

[5] In 2014, another mortgage was registered on the title in favour of the second defendant (“the Platinum mortgage”). 

[6] In 2017, after some negotiations, the ANZ loan was changed from a residential investment loan to a home loan (“the 2017 loan agreement”). The loan secured by the first mortgage had been discharged by the loan secured by the second mortgage, and Ms Ashcroft sought to have that first mortgage released. 

[7] In September 2017, ANZ issued internal settlement instructions to effect the release of the first mortgage only. Contrary to that instruction, and due to some error for which Ms Ashcroft carries no blame, ANZ lodged a release of both the first and the second mortgages. Those releases were registered. 

[8] In 2018, Ms Ashcroft informed ANZ that “it appeared there was no registered document on the title” to the Norman Park property. ANZ responded by placing a caveat on the title to the property. Soon after that, ANZ asked Ms Ashcroft to execute a new mortgage. She did not and has not done so since. 

[9] ANZ took no action with respect to the caveat, and, as a result, it lapsed in March 2018. It was removed from the title in August 2019. Before it was removed, the third defendant (Mr Ashcroft) executed, and Ms Ashcroft lodged a mortgage in favour of Mr Ashcroft securing the sum of $70,000 (“the Ashcroft mortgage”). 

[10] This proceeding was commenced by way of Originating Application in which a number of orders were sought, including: (a) a declaration that the property is subject to an equitable mortgage in favour of ANZ, (b) a declaration that the equitable mortgage secures payment by Ms Ashcroft of all monies owing to the ANZ under the 2017 loan agreement, and (c) an order that Ms Ashcroft execute a mortgage here in the same terms as those contained in the second mortgage. 

What orders have been made? 

[11] This matter has been placed on the Supervised Case List, and orders have been made for the conduct of the matter. 

[12] On 14 May 2021, Boddice J ordered that, by 21 May 2021, the ANZ: (a) was to serve any proposed Amended Statement of Claim on the defendants, and (b) provide a full response to the First and Second Defendant’s request for particulars and r 444 of the UCPR letters to the extent that they had not been addressed in the proposed Amended Statement of Claim. 

[13] There was no order requiring ANZ to file the proposed Amended Statement of Claim. Yet, it did so. The purpose of the order made by Boddice J was to allow the defendants to see the proposed amendments and to make any objection to them so that ANZ might deal with them before any amended pleading was filed. That is a fairly common order and one which conduces to greater efficiency. That, though, apparently did not appeal to ANZ. 

[14] On 18 June 2021, Boddice J ordered that ANZ file and serve any application for leave to bring claims other than those in the Amended Originating Application and, if necessary, for leave to amend the statement of claim in the proposed form served by ANZ on 21 May 2021. A further order was made repeating the order made on 14 May 2021 about a provision of a response to the request for particulars, et cetera. 

... 

[17] In order to support that, ANZ seeks to plead that Mr Ashcroft is a “relative” of Ms Ashcroft within the meaning of that term as defined in the Corporations Act 2001 and that Mr Ashcroft is a “related entity” of Platinum Success within the meaning of that term as defined in the Corporations Act. These are bold and adventurous pleadings but entirely misconceived. The meaning that “relative” has for the purposes of the Corporations Act is irrelevant to these proceedings. 

[18] There are other matters in the Amended Statement of Claim which deserve attention: (a) there is a pleading of an estoppel against claiming priority in the absence of a defence claiming priority for Platinum mortgage when there is no such pleaded claim, (b) there is a pleading that Platinum does not have the benefit of indefeasibility when there is no such pleaded claim, and (c) a claim that it would be unconscionable for Platinum to assert priority et cetera when it has not yet pleaded anything. 

[19] These may just be examples of a plaintiff wanting to get its retaliation in first, but to leave a pleading in that state will only lead to further confusion. 

What should be done? 

[20] The applicant was not in a position at the hearing to deal with the pleading points raised on behalf of the first and second respondents. A cursory examination of the Amended Statement of Claim, which was filed notwithstanding the orders which had been made, reveals a number of defects – many of which were identified in the submissions of Mr Roney QC – which need to be remedied. 

[21] Mr Chatsworth made a number of complaints about the pleadings, and some of them had a considerable weight. However, in the absence of a formal application and the appropriate notice being given to strike out the Amended Statement of Claim, I do not propose to deal with it on this application. 

[22] The application to further amend the Amended Originating Application is allowed. But, ANZ will have to revisit its pleading and thoroughly renovate it. Subject to any further submissions, I will make an order that ANZ serve upon the other parties a further amended statement of claim but that any such document not be filed until any objections the other parties might have to it have been dealt with upon a properly formulated application.

Critical Infrastructure

The Department of Home Affairs has released 'Critical Technology Supply Chain Principles', claimed to 

help governments and businesses to decide about suppliers and the transparency of their own products. 

We have grouped the ten Principles under the three pillars of security-by-design, transparency, and autonomy and integrity.

Agreed pillar:  Security-by-design

Security should be a core component of critical technologies. Organisations should ensure they are making decisions that build-in security from the ground up. 

Agreed Principles

1. ​Understand what needs to be protected, why it needs to be protected, and how it can be protected.  

2. Understand the different security risks posed by your supply chain. 

3. Build security considerations into all organisational processes, including into contracting processes, that are proportionate to the level of risk (and encourage suppliers to do the same). 

4. Raise awareness of and promote security within your supply chain.

Agreed pillar:  Transparency

Transparency of technology supply chains is critical, both from a business perspective and a national security perspective.

Agreed Principles  

5. ​Know who critical suppliers are and build an understanding of their security measures. 

6. ​Set and communicate minimum transparency requirements consistent with existing standards and international benchmarks for your suppliers and encourage continuous improvement. 

7. ​Encourage suppliers to understand and be transparent in the depth of their supply chains, and be able to provide this information to customers.

Agreed Pillar:  Autonomy and integrity 

Knowing that your suppliers demonstrate integrity and are acting autonomously is fundamental to securing your supply chain.

Agreed Principles 

8. Seek and consider the available advice and guidance on influence of foreign governments on suppliers and seek to ensure they operate with appropriate levels of autonomy. 

9. Consider if suppliers operate ethically, with integrity, and consistently with international law and human rights. 

10. Build strategic partnering relationships with critical suppliers.

Home Affairs states 

These Principles are voluntary for industry. The Australian Government will use them in its own decision making practices. They should help organisations – including governments and businesses of all sizes – securely adopt, develop and benefit from critical technologies. 

Knowing the risks and asking the right questions are the first steps in creating trusted and secure technology supply chains. 

We developed the Principles through a co-design process with industry. There was a consultation period for feedback from ​non-government organisations, state and territory governments, and the community. 

 The Principles also complement the ​ Protecting Critical Infrastructure and Systems of National Significance reforms. They align with the Cyber Supply Chain Guidance provided by the Australian Cyber Security Centre. Together, these measures help protect critical goods and services that Australia relies on.

The feedback noted above includes

Overall, feedback was supportive of the Principles through the consultation process. Industry feedback agreed that critical technology supply chain security is increasingly important to ensure Australia’s future economic prosperity and national security. Responses flagged that government and industry partnerships are key in ensuring that industry has the full threat picture. 

We heard that most businesses are aware of the risks to their critical technology supply chains, however they require clear definitions from Government on what constitutes a critical technology, and what should be prioritised. There was also discussion around whether the Principles, which are currently voluntary, should be mandatory or not. Some businesses supported mandatory Principles, through the establishment of clear standards and regulatory frameworks with Government support6. We heard that mandating the Principles could be considered at their 12 month review. 

We also heard that making the Principles mandatory could erode their usefulness to industry and limit flexibility. If the Principles were to become mandatory, there should be evidence to support their measurements of success and a framework to report compliance. There was strong support for Government to implement the Principles first, and provide case studies to industry outlining the costs, benefits and risks. We will continue this conversation with industry partners through the evaluation and implementation process for the Principles. 

It was repeated throughout the consultation process that Government could provide more in-depth guidance under each principle to support their implementation. Industry partners advised that Government could provide pragmatic questions entities can ask of themselves and their suppliers as they work toward supply chain resilience.  Feedback highlighted that best practice guides could support adaptation of the Principles. Responses highlighted that awareness raising and education on supply chain security is required. Additionally, it was noted that successful case studies and evidence of the Principles effectiveness would empower industry uptake. 

There was feedback from multiple respondents that the Principles coincide with the objectives of existing standards – specifically the Australian Signal Directorate’s Information Security Manual and Department of Home Affairs’ Telecommunications Sector Security Reforms. We also heard that it is important that the Principles recognise the other various initiatives in place or underway to ensure any crossover is considered. 

We heard the feedback that the Principles have the ability to shape decisions of companies of all sizes. The Principles can provide a baseline for companies that are scaling and might require initial guidance on supply chain management. They may also be of use to entities across the public or private sector who wish to assess their supply chain resilience and security posture. 

Through submissions and discussion with industry participants, implementation considerations were also raised. This included the suggestion that to encourage compliance there could be reporting requirements for organisations and major products, similar to reporting requirements in modern slavery reporting. 

This could involve organisations confirming that they had considered the principles in their operations. Government could consider mechanisms to be able to measure progress by businesses and Government entities. This could be done through voluntary, targeted surveys, via a self-reporting framework or other data gathering mechanisms that do not significantly add to administration costs.  Additionally, respondents noted that the cheapest option is not always best when it comes to security. Costs are difficult to estimate, however from a risk management perspective, the costs of not addressing supply chain risks are far greater. Government should ideally enable sensible financial decisions by empowering staff to consider, with prudent weight scales, other values alongside lowest cost models.  Implementing mandatory principles would likely impose administrative costs, but costs could likely be offset by the benefit of a more security-ordinated culture outside of Government and a greater focus on supply chain resilience. 

Finally, it was clear that Government and industry must collaborate to ensure that the security of critical technology supply chains is well-informed, robust and continually adapting. The evolving pace of innovation at the national level, and international level, is underpinned by the competitive element nature of the market and requires cooperation to ensure the Principles can be actively applied