14. Torts

2021 ◽  
pp. 549-598
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Goods ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The One

A claim for damages for loss caused by a public authority gives a court the opportunity to do justice for the claimant and also to impose the rule of law on the administration. The challenge is to do both without interfering inappropriately in the administrative pursuit of public goods, and without creating public compensation funds that only a legislature can legitimately create. It is an important constitutional principle that liabilities in the law of tort apply to public authorities, just as to private parties. But there is no general liability to compensate for public action that was unlawful; the impugned conduct must meet the standard requirements of the tort liability of private parties, with the exception of the one public tort: misfeasance in a public office. This chapter discusses trespass to property, statutory liabilities, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998.

14. Torts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Timothy Endicott
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The One

A claim for damages for loss caused by a public authority gives a court the opportunity to do justice for the claimant, and also to impose the rule of law on the administration. The challenge is to do both without interfering in the administrative pursuit of public goods, and without creating public compensation funds that only a legislature can legitimately create. It is an important constitutional principle that liabilities in the law of tort apply to public authorities, just as to private parties. But there is no general liability to compensate for public action that was unlawful; the impugned conduct must meet the standard requirements of the tort liability of private parties, with the exception of the one public tort: misfeasance in a public office. This chapter discusses trespass to property, statutory liabilities, negligence, misfeasance in public office, and damages under the Human Rights Act 1998 and under European Union law.

Alternative Remedies

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public Office ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Injured Party ◽  
Alternative Remedies

This book focuses primarily upon claims brought against public authorities for the tort of negligence. Where a public authority causes harm to an individual, either deliberately or carelessly, there may also be other remedies available to the injured party. The present chapter considers some of the more important alternative remedies, though perhaps the most significant alternative now available are claims brought under the Human Rights Act 1998, which are considered separately in Chapter 7. In this chapter we examine the torts of misfeasance in public office and breach of statutory duty as well as judicial review proceedings and complaints to the Ombudsmen.

scholarly journals PUBLIC AUTHORITIES AS “VICTIMS” UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

2005 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-328
Author(s):  
Howard Davis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Local Authorities ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

ONE feature of the current debate concerning the term “public authority” in the Human Rights Act 1998 is a rule to the effect that public authorities are not themselves capable of having and enforcing Convention rights. In what follows this will be referred to as the “rights-restriction rule”. The position was confirmed by the House of Lords in Aston Cantlow and has been given effect by the courts in relation to English local authorities and to NHS Trusts in Scotland. Despite this, doubts have been expressed. In particular the parliamentary Joint Committee has suggested, though without argument, that the denial of Convention rights to public authorities may be wrong in principle and that there are “circumstances in which public authorities have Convention rights”.

8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies

2019 ◽  
pp. 295-342
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Zoe Adams
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court Decision ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government

This chapter discusses the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998. The chapter explores in detail the question of whether public authorities, and the police in particular, are under a duty of care when undertaking and performing their operational duties, in light of the Supreme Court decision in Robinson v. Chief Constable of West Yorkshire. In turn, it teases out some of the broader implications of what is a rapidly evolving, and politically sensitive, aspect of the law.

The Application of the Human Rights Act 1998 to Public Authorities and Private Bodies

1999 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 159-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Bamforth
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Definition Of

THE Human Rights Act 1998 applies only to “public authorities”. This article begins by examining the Act's definition of a “public authority” and how this will interact with existing distinctions between public and private law in domestic judicial review and EU law. It is then argued that the Act may, through two different routes, have a limited horizontal impact between private bodies – although certain technical obstacles will need to be overcome. The article considers, finally, the operation between private bodies of the requirement that legislation be interpreted as far as possible in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights.

15. Liability of Public Authorities

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Elliott ◽  
Jason Varuhas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines the nature and operation of the liability of public authorities, with particular emphasis on the tensions between the equality principle, a concern that authorities ought to be specially protected, and a concern that authorities ought to be subject to wider and more onerous obligations. The chapter first considers the relationship of public authority liability with judicial review and goes on to discuss the law of torts, especially the tort of negligence and what circumstances courts ought to impose negligence liability on public authorities for harm caused through exercises of statutory discretion. It then explores negligence liability in relation to omissions, human rights, and misfeasance in public office. It also reviews damages under the Human Rights Act 1998, contracts, restitution, and state liability in European Union law.

8. Liability of Public and Statutory Bodies

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Deakin ◽  
Angus Johnston ◽  
Basil Markesinis
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Tort Liability ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government

This chapter discusses the following: the distinctive nature of the liability of the government, public authorities, and statutory bodies; the liability of statutory bodies in negligence; liability for breach of statutory duty; public law as a source of liability; public law as a source of immunity; Crown proceedings in tort; liability for breaches of EU law; and liabilities arising under the Human Rights Act 1998.

PUBLIC, PRIVATE AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: AN IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE

2007 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 559-573 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
City Council ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Private Finance Initiative ◽  
The Public ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Public Nature ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

The House of Lords decision in YL v. Birmingham City Council considers the issue of what is a public authority under the Human Rights Act 1998. The question is a critical one as the Convention rights, contained in the Human Rights Act, are directly enforceable only against public authorities. The issue of whether a body is a public authority has proved highly controversial. The hiving-off of many traditional governmental functions through policies such as privatisation, outsourcing and projects under the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) has led to a blurring of the traditionally understood public-private distinction. The changed nature in the way that public services are delivered has led to sharply divergent views among the judiciary about which functions are those of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. This is evident in the YL judgment itself: a split decision, with two dissenting judgements. The division in the House reflects different understandings of the operation of the Human Rights Act, the public-private distinction and, perhaps more fundamentally, competing ideological stances.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document