125:. On the one hand, if the claimant had suffered damage as a result of a faulty inspection, that would be actionable operational negligence. On the other hand, it would be insufficient to show that structural flaws in the property would have been found if more inspections had taken place, if the lack of inspections was the result of a policy by the public authority. In the latter case the claim would not be actionable. However, the distinction now plays a relatively minor role in definition the duty of care owed by public authorities. The distinction now forms just one factor in deciding whether a decision is justiciable or non-justiciable, which is a decision to be taken by the court regardless of the views of the public authority itself. It is now more common to limit public authority liability on the basis of other factors.
147:, it was decided that the police owed no general duty of care to potential victims of crime. A determining factor was that the House of Lords believed that it was the discretion of a chief police officer to decide how available resources should be deployed and which leads should be acted upon and which possibilities ruled out. The House was also not prepared to risk the possibility of encouraging "defensive" policing whereby the police would shun any potential for liability even where to do so would further the case. The court in
138:, with the result that the extent of the duty of care of public authority defends would primarily result from asking whether it would be "fair, just and reasonable" to impose liability. In relation to public authority defendants, a wide range of factors would be considered including relevant statutes and a wide range of policy factors. The role of justiciability is therefore much less significant, although it can still influence a decision on whether liability is fair, just and reasonable.
227:
213:
118:
boys” had been the result of a policy decision to grant them greater freedom, it would not be actionable. If it were actionable, it would require the assessment of the policy, its impact on young offenders, the public, and public resources, a task which the court could not undertake. However,
153:
decided that a fire brigade only owed a duty of care to the owners of the property to which it responded to avoid doing damage to the property which would not otherwise occur. In this instance, the relationship was insufficiently proximate, another, separate, requirement of
172:
Misfeasance in public office is considered to be a special kind of public law tort. It occurs when there is a malicious or deliberate exercise or non-exercise of a statutory or common law power by an official which causes loss to a plaintiff which has been foreseen.
23:. The existence of private law tort applying to public bodies is a result of Diceyan constitutional theory suggesting that it would be unfair if a separate system of liability existing for government and officials. Therefore, a public body which acts
37:, give rise to damages Therefore, a claimant will have to fit into one of the recognised private law courses of action. These areas in which a public body can incur private liability in tort were described by Lord Browne Wilkinson in
101:
A policy/operational distinction was once apparent in the court's reasoning. They suggested that they are more willing to attach liability to an act or omission of a public authority where the duty of care claimed emerges from the
119:
liability could be found where the public authority had been negligent in the exercise of the policy (i.e. negligent in the context of allowing greater freedom to young offenders). This reasoning was also adopted in the case of
97:
It is possible for a public authority to be liable in the law of negligence. There can be no liability here for mere carelessness performance of a statutory duty or power in the absence of any other common law right of action.
197:
141:
The extent of liability in different areas has therefore been decided by a string of cases examining where it would be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. In
480:
143:
183:
149:
448:
416:
391:
363:
338:
313:
274:
245:
111:
57:
It is not enough that there is a careless performance of a statutory duty in the absence of any other common law right of action.
167:
134:
92:
39:
440:
190:
475:
470:
66:
132:(concerning the liability of both public and private defendants) was disapproved in the subsequent case of
291:
X (MINORS) V BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL; M (A MINOR) AND ANOTHER V NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL; ETC; HL
76:
2. The plaintiff must fall within the class of persons that the statute was supposed to protect.
29:
is liable in tort is a cause of action can be established just like any individual would be. An
444:
412:
387:
359:
334:
309:
270:
240:
218:
464:
121:
432:
226:
158:
test. This conclusion was extended also to the coastguard in an analogous case.
25:
20:
232:
208:
73:
1. The Court must believe that this accords with the intention of
Parliament.
19:
is an area of law concerning the tortious liability of public bodies in
115:
114:
the House of Lords decided that if the damage caused by a group of “
386:(6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 963–4.
333:(6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. pp. 960–2.
50:
2. An action for breach of a common law duty of care
198:
150:
Capital and
Counties plc v Hampshire County Council
411:(6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. p. 964.
358:(6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. p. 963.
308:(6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. p. 958.
269:(6th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell. p. 957.
128:The test for liability in negligence laid down in
79:3. The plaintiff must suffer consequential damage.
87:Breach of a common law duty of care (negligence)
377:
375:
8:
82:4. There must be no other possible remedy.
144:Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire
106:of the public authority rather than the
257:
110:pursued by it. So, for example, in the
17:Administrative liability in English law
435:; Richard Rawlings (20 August 2009).
7:
184:Anns v Merton London Borough Council
14:
481:United Kingdom administrative law
246:United Kingdom administrative law
225:
211:
53:3. Misfeasance in public office
40:X v Bedfordshire County Council
407:Craig, Paul (14 August 2008).
382:Craig, Paul (14 August 2008).
354:Craig, Paul (14 August 2008).
329:Craig, Paul (14 August 2008).
304:Craig, Paul (14 August 2008).
265:Craig, Paul (14 August 2008).
1:
47:1. Breach of a statutory duty
168:Misfeasance in public office
162:Misfeasance in public office
135:Caparo Industries v Dickman
93:Duty of care in English law
497:
441:Cambridge University Press
191:Home Office v Dorset Yacht
165:
90:
67:breach of statutory duty
61:Breach of statutory duty
437:Law and Administration
43:3 All ER 353 (HL).
409:Administrative Law
384:Administrative Law
356:Administrative Law
331:Administrative Law
306:Administrative Law
267:Administrative Law
65:For an action for
112:Dorset Yacht case
33:action will not,
488:
476:Public liability
471:English tort law
455:
454:
439:(2nd ed.).
429:
423:
422:
404:
398:
397:
379:
370:
369:
351:
345:
344:
326:
320:
319:
301:
295:
294:
287:
281:
280:
262:
241:English tort law
235:
230:
229:
221:
216:
215:
214:
496:
495:
491:
490:
489:
487:
486:
485:
461:
460:
459:
458:
451:
443:. p. 620.
431:
430:
426:
419:
406:
405:
401:
394:
381:
380:
373:
366:
353:
352:
348:
341:
328:
327:
323:
316:
303:
302:
298:
289:
288:
284:
277:
264:
263:
259:
254:
231:
224:
217:
212:
210:
207:
179:
170:
164:
95:
89:
63:
12:
11:
5:
494:
492:
484:
483:
478:
473:
463:
462:
457:
456:
450:978-0521701792
449:
424:
418:978-1847032836
417:
399:
393:978-1847032836
392:
371:
365:978-1847032836
364:
346:
340:978-1847032836
339:
321:
315:978-1847032836
314:
296:
293:, 29 June 1995
282:
276:978-1847032836
275:
256:
255:
253:
250:
249:
248:
243:
237:
236:
222:
219:England portal
206:
203:
202:
201:
194:
187:
178:
175:
166:Main article:
163:
160:
91:Main article:
88:
85:
84:
83:
80:
77:
74:
62:
59:
55:
54:
51:
48:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
493:
482:
479:
477:
474:
472:
469:
468:
466:
452:
446:
442:
438:
434:
428:
425:
420:
414:
410:
403:
400:
395:
389:
385:
378:
376:
372:
367:
361:
357:
350:
347:
342:
336:
332:
325:
322:
317:
311:
307:
300:
297:
292:
286:
283:
278:
272:
268:
261:
258:
251:
247:
244:
242:
239:
238:
234:
228:
223:
220:
209:
204:
200:
199:
195:
193:
192:
188:
186:
185:
181:
180:
176:
174:
169:
161:
159:
157:
152:
151:
146:
145:
139:
137:
136:
131:
130:Anns v Merton
126:
124:
123:
122:Anns v Merton
117:
113:
109:
105:
99:
94:
86:
81:
78:
75:
72:
71:
70:
68:
60:
58:
52:
49:
46:
45:
44:
42:
41:
36:
32:
28:
27:
22:
18:
436:
433:Carol Harlow
427:
408:
402:
383:
355:
349:
330:
324:
305:
299:
290:
285:
266:
260:
196:
189:
182:
171:
155:
148:
142:
140:
133:
129:
127:
120:
107:
103:
100:
96:
69:to succeed:
64:
56:
38:
34:
30:
24:
16:
15:
31:ultra vires
26:ultra vires
21:English law
465:Categories
252:References
233:Law portal
177:Key cases
104:operation
205:See also
116:borstal
447:
415:
390:
362:
337:
312:
273:
156:Caparo
108:policy
35:per se
445:ISBN
413:ISBN
388:ISBN
360:ISBN
335:ISBN
310:ISBN
271:ISBN
467::
374:^
453:.
421:.
396:.
368:.
343:.
318:.
279:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
