principle stand in sharp contrast to the role of fault in English law (Jolowicz [1985] CLJ 370). The public/private debate thus remains important for the comparative obligations lawyer. However, does the distinction between public and private law actually have any relevance in late 20th century economies? 6 The distinction is vague and tenuous, and perhaps arises not so much from the different matter of public and private law as from the different remedies which may be sought; the Divisional Court dealing with an application for [judicial review] seems to think differently from a puisne judge hearing a claim for damages (Weir, The common law system’, IECL,
Pages 2

Roy v Kensington and Chelsea Family Practitioner Committee [1992] 1 AC 624 House of Lords

A doctor brought, inter alia, an action in debt against his Family Practitioner Committee for breach of contract. The FPC sought to have the claim struck out as an abuse of process on the basis that the relationship between a doctor and the FPC was a matter only of public law and that the sole remedy available to the doctor was an action for judicial review. The House of Lords refused to strike out the claim.