5. Special duty problems: public bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 96-131
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

Public bodies have extensive powers to act for the public benefit but often have limited resources. Difficult decisions have to be made, and if those decisions are wholly unreasonable they may be corrected by judicial review; that is, by public law remedies. A more difficult question is whether failure by a public body provides a private right of action to someone harmed (or not benefited) by the decision. While the general principles of duty of care apply (that is, proximity and whether it is fair and just to impose liability), there are several limitations on the liability of public bodies in negligence. This chapter first discusses the special common law principles applicable to the exercise of discretion by public bodies. It then considers specific problematic areas, including the difficulties involved in establishing duties of care by the emergency services before examining the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 in establishing obligations owed directly by the state.

5. Special duty problems: public bodies

2019 ◽  
pp. 93-126
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

Public bodies have extensive powers to act for the public benefit but often have limited resources. Difficult decisions have to be made, and if those decisions are wholly unreasonable they may be corrected by judicial review; that is, by public law remedies. A more difficult question is whether failure by a public body provides a private right of action to someone harmed (or not benefited) by the decision. While the general principles of duty of care apply (that is, proximity and whether it is fair and just to impose liability), there are several limitations on the liability of public bodies in negligence. This chapter first discusses the special common law principles applicable to the exercise of discretion by public bodies. It then considers specific problematic areas, including the difficulties involved in establishing duties of care by the emergency services before examining the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 in establishing obligations owed directly by the state.

5. Special duty problems: public bodies

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Common Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Right Of Action ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Exercise Of Discretion ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

Public bodies have extensive powers to act for the public benefit but often have limited resources. Difficult decisions have to be made, and if those decisions are wholly unreasonable they may be corrected by judicial review; that is, by public law remedies. A more difficult question is whether failure by a public body provides a private right of action to someone harmed (or not benefited) by the decision. While the general principles of duty of care apply (that is, proximity and whether it is fair and just to impose liability), there are several limitations on the liability of public bodies in negligence. This chapter first discusses the special common law principles applicable to the exercise of discretion by public bodies. It then considers specific problematic areas, including the difficulties involved in establishing duties of care by the emergency services before examining the effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 in establishing obligations owed directly by the state.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

2021 ◽  
pp. 138-187
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

6. Trade secrets, confidential information, and the protection of private information

2019 ◽  
pp. 75-94
Author(s):  
Tim Press
Keyword(s):  
Public Interest ◽  
Private Information ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Trade Secrets ◽  
The Public ◽  
Separate Branch ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

This chapter focuses on the law of breach of confidence, which protects trade secrets and privacy. It is judge-made law, with its origins in equity. The action for breach of confidence now resembles a common law cause of action, but its equitable basis is still evident in the flexibility and discretion the judges adopt in deciding cases. The Human Rights Act 1998 required the courts to implement the right to private and family life. The courts have done this, in cases concerning private information, by extending the law to protect privacy where the information concerned was not secret. This is now regarded as a separate branch of the law. Special considerations also apply in relation to the duties employees owe to their employer both during and after their employment. There is a defence to an action for breach of confidence where publication is in the public interest.

Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Public Bodies

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, in the Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

6. Special duty problems: public bodies

Tort Law ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 137-185
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Services ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Exclusionary Rule ◽  
Current State ◽  
Public Body ◽  
The Law ◽  
Special Duty ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter explains what happens when a public body owes a private law duty of care to an individual who claims against it in negligence. It remains the case that public bodies will be liable where the negligent exercise of their powers makes a situation worse than it already was. The discussions cover the general exclusionary rule; the current state of the law; the background to D v East Berkshire [2005]; rules for claims brought against the emergency services (including the police) and armed forces; other types of public body; and new types of claims: education-based claims and ‘social’ claims.

Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Public Bodies

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Donoghue v Poplar Housing and Regeneration Community Association Limited and another [2001] EWCA Civ 595, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether Poplar Housing was a public body for the purposes of s. 6(3)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public bodies are required to act in accordance with the HRA. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Extending the liability of the state in damages

Legal Studies ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-14 ◽  
Author(s):  
Merris Amos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Private Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
European Court ◽  
Public Body ◽  
Alternative Means ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

It is still the case in English law that invalid administrative action alone gives rise to no claim for damages. Individuals suffering loss as a result of invalid administrative action may remain uncompensated unless they have a private law remedy against the public body such as a claim in tort or contract. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 and developments in Community damages law have greatly increased the liability of public bodies in damages. However, the extension of liability in these areas raises questions as to whether it is satisfactory or even possible for the prohibition on damages for invalid administrative action to be maintained given the anomalies that have and will be created. Statutory reform, drawing on Community law, the Human Rights Act and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, may go some way towards resolving existing anomalies and providing individuals with an adequate, alternative means of obtaining redress.

Disciplinary Uniformity in Uniform—A Success of the Human Rights Act 1998?

2008 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
pp. 170-177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chris Gale
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
World War ◽  
The Public ◽  
The First World War ◽  
History Of ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Military Discipline ◽  
First World

Apart from an awareness of shameful treatment to some shell-shocked soldiers on active duty in the First World War, the subjects of military discipline in general and courts-martial in particular are unlikely to permeate the consciousness of the public at large or, indeed, the vast majority of criminal lawyers. This article explores some of the history of both, the current position in relation to courts-martial and the planned reforms under the Armed Forces Act 2006. That the Human Rights Act 1998 exposed some of the anomalities and worst practices of courts-martial is undeniable. It seems equally likely that the 1998 Act was at least a catalyst for the wholesale review and modernisation of military discipline carried out by the 2006 Act.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document