Liability of Public Authorities and Breach of Statutory Duty Flashcards
what was the first view the courts took in relation to whether a a duty of care exists between public authorities and persons who may be affected by their actions
Initially the courts took the view that where a public authority was operating under legislation liability in those circumstances was limited to the words used and parameters set in legislation itself.
what are the facts of the case anns v merton london bourough council?
The plaintiffs were tenants in a block of flats which suffered from structural defects due to inadequate foundations. The defendant council was responsible for inspecting foundations during the construction of the flats and on that basis the House of Lords held that the defendant did owe a duty to ensure the foundations were of correct depth and a failure to do so would result in foreseeable structural harm suffered.
According to the case of Caparo v Dickman industries, when will a duty be imposed?
a duty would only be imposed in circumstances where it was ‘fair just and reasonable to do so’.
explain the decision that was reached in the case of Beatty v tribunal
The beattys were landlords of rent controlled property who argued that the rent tribunal had been negligent in failing to observe fair procedures when it fixed the rent for their property at a level far below the prevailing market rent.
The High court rules that the tribunal did owe a duty of care to ensure that the award they reached was done so fairly, and that it was reasonably foreseeable that if the tribunal breached that duty, the Beattys would suffer loss and awarded damages to the Beattys.
on appeal, the supreme court overturned that decision and held that because the tribunal was a statutory body exercising statutory duties in the public interest, it enjoyed immunity based on public policy from claims of negligence so long that it was acting in good faith and within its jurisdicition.
why might there not be a duty of care for public authorities?
It is in the public interest that public authorities perform their functions without the fear or threat of action by individuals.
The fact that it is performing a function which is in the public
interest may outweigh any duty of care to private individuals. Threat of litigations against a public authority would not make it more efficient.
Necessity of defending proceedings successfully or unsuccessfully, would distract it for its duties.
explain the two-stage test formulated by lord wilberforce in anns v Merton Borough council.
two stage test - 1. Whether or not there was proximity between the parties and if so, 2. If it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant would have caused damage to the plaintiff if he was careless. If these criteria were satisfied then there was a prima facie duty of care, which could only be rebutted if there was a serious question of public policy, which would limit the scope of duty owed.
what are the four requirements to establish liability as laid down in Glencar
- Reasonable foreseeability
- proximity of relationship
- Countervailing public policy considerations and
- The justice and reasonableness of imposing a duty of care
The standard of care - public authorities
The standard of care will be assessed in terms of what a reasonable public authority would have done in the circumstances.
If it is shown that they acted unreasonably then liability will be imposed, however this is only applicable where it is first established that the duty of care is owned in the first instance.
liability of the state
The state may be held liable for the actions of its representatives or employees where there is an obligation to protect such person and they fail or omit to do so.
what are the facts of Hill v. Constable of West Yorkshire? - can’t allow a flood a claims against the police
A mother of a victim of the Yorkshire ripper alleged negligence on account that the police should have caught the killer earlier, thus saving her life. At the time of the alleged negligence, the victim could never have been identified, so no proximity. However, even if there was, no duty was owed for public policy reasons, as the ct.
does not want to create defensive policing.
what are the facts of Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police? - can’t allow a flood a claims against the police
76-year-old woman sued, police fell on her when chasing a suspect. Reiterated that there is no general duty for 3rd
parties, but distinguished Hill. The police created the danger and it was foreseeable. Thus they were liable.
