TomKohavi, Constitutional Rights in Private Law, Oxford: Bloomsbury, 2025, 224 pp, hb, £90.00

Private law traditionally presents itself as concerned primarily with the rights and obligations arising between particular parties, leaving little room for consideration of broader social implications.Although the historical reality is more nuanced than this account suggests (Stephen Waddams, Dimensions of Private Law (Cambridge: CUP, 2009)), the dominant modes of doctrinal reasoning in contemporary private law found in Commonwealth countries remain structured around bilateral relations (Ernest J. Weinrib, The Idea of Private Law (Oxford: OUP, 2nd ed, 2012)).Given private law's role in structuring society, the societal consequences of private law are as much a question of political and moral theory as legal doctrine.Indeed, as Constitutional Rights in Private Law expertly demonstrates, its naturally myopic focus creates tensions with other areas of law which are more geared towards the realisation of collective goals.Take for example the defamation litigation in Aaron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr [2022] EWHC 1417 (QB) (Banks).Banks is a wealthy businessman and political donor, particularly well known for his financial support of the 'Leave.EU' campaign ahead of the 2016 UK referendum on EU membership.Cadwalladr, an investigative journalist, said in a TED Talk published in April 2019 that Banks had a covert relationship with the Russian Government.She retweeted a link to the talk that month, saying '[Banks] lied about his contact with the Russian govt' (ibid, at [4]).The thrust of her reporting was that Banks took Russian money, which he used to influence the outcome of the Brexit referendum.Banks sued Cadwalladr for defamation.The Court of Appeal stressed that despite public opinion on Banks already being divided due to his political opinions, this was irrelevant to the defamation claim.Whether he was 'liked or disliked' or had a 'bad reputation' in one sector, such as politics, did not mean people could defame him in other sectors of his life, such as business (Aaron Banks v Carole Cadwalladr [2023] EWCA Civ 219 at [55] per Lord Justice Warby).From the perspective of private law, the specific focus is on whether Cadwalladr had defamed Banks, ie an interpersonal dispute.At this level of analysis, the wider implications of the case for democratic debate were irrelevant.Of course, constitutional values, such as freedom of speech, have made inroads into areas of private law, such as defamation, albeit in a somewhat restricted manner.On that basis, Cadwalladr relied on the public interest defence found in the Defamation Act 2013, which encapsulates constitutional concerns about freedom of speech.Via this defence, private law has