10. Nuisance

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Relationship

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter is concerned with two forms of action in nuisance: public nuisance and private nuisance. It begins by considering the basis of liability in private nuisance and the difficulties presented by cases of overlap between negligence and nuisance. It also discusses the relationship between private and public interests and the relevance of the Human Rights Act 1998. The chapter concludes by assessing the role of community or public interest in nuisance actions, particularly in relation to remedies. Relevant court cases are cited where appropriate.

The right to healthcare

2020 ◽  
pp. 195-208
Author(s):  
Ann Marie Gray
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter explores the relationship between human rights and health and social care. It begins by setting out the main international mechanisms, at UN, EU and ECHR levels, and the obligations they place on governments. It then discusses the impact of international and domestic human rights instruments through an examination of developments in social care policy, and with regard to reproductive health care rights in Northern Ireland. It also highlights issues relating to devolution and the implementation of human rights in the UK and in particular the role of the Human Rights Act (1998).

scholarly journals The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 – Ten Years On

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 61-96
Author(s):  
Ronagh JA McQuigg
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
General Level ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship

The European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 has now been in force in Ireland for ten years. This article analyses the Act itself and the impact which it has had on the Irish courts during the first decade of its operation. The use of the European Convention on Human Rights in the Irish courts prior to the enactment of the legislation is discussed, as are the reasons for the passing of the Act. The relationship between the Act and the Irish Constitution is examined, as is the jurisprudence of the Irish courts towards the interpretative obligation found in section 2(1), and the duty placed upon organs of the State by section 3(1). The article ends with a number of observations regarding the impact which the Act has had on the Irish courts at a more general level. Comparisons will be drawn with the uk’s Human Rights Act 1998 throughout the discussion.

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, in the House of Lords

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Parliamentary Sovereignty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Home Department ◽  
The Relationship

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33, House of Lords. The case considered whether the Secretary of State, and prison governors, could restrict prisoners’ access to journalists investigating alleged miscarriages of justice. In addition to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Article 10 issues this raises, Lord Hoffmann also in obiter dicta discussed the relationship between the Human Rights Act 1998, parliamentary sovereignty, and the concept of legality. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

15. Defamation

2021 ◽  
pp. 391-450
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
A Company

This chapter focuses on defamation which enables an individual (or, more controversially, a company) to prevent the publication of, or recover damages for, public statements which make, or are likely to make, people think less of them. At its heart is a balance between freedom of speech (protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998) and the interests of an individual in the protection of their reputation. The chapter examines the Defamation Act 2013 and explains who can sue for, and be liable in, defamation, when a statement is ‘defamatory’ and innuendo. It also considers the defences of truth, honest opinion, publication in a matter of public interest and privilege. It concludes with a discussion of damages for defamation.

15. Defamation

2019 ◽  
pp. 380-438
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
A Company

This chapter focuses on defamation which enables an individual (or, more controversially, a company) to prevent the publication of, or recover damages for, public statements which make, or are likely to make, people think less of them. At its heart is a balance between freedom of speech (protected under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998) and the interests of an individual in the protection of their reputation. The chapter examines the Defamation Act 2013 and explains who can sue for, and be liable in, defamation, when a statement is ‘defamatory’ and innuendo. It also considers the defences of truth, honest opinion, publication in a matter of public interest and privilege. It concludes with a discussion of damages for defamation.

8. Damages, Compensation, and Responsibility

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Conceptual Difficulties ◽  
Academic Debate

All books in this flagship series contain carefully selected substantial extracts from key cases, legislation, and academic debate, providing able students with a stand-alone resource. This chapter deals with remedies, particularly monetary remedies, and remedial issues in relation to torts. Before discussing compensation and responsibility, it first considers the heads of loss for which damages in tort may be awarded, and some serious conceptual difficulties involved with this. It then looks at the potential for non-compensatory awards and the challenge to tort law represented by the growth of damages under the Human Rights Act 1998. It also assesses recent developments with respect to the assessment and delivery of damages, the funding of litigation, and the relationship between tort damages and welfare support.

13. Rylands v Fletcher

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Bermingham ◽  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Knowledge ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Public Nuisance ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship

Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Nuisance protects against ‘indirect’ interference with the claimant’s use and enjoyment of land. There are two categories of nuisance: public nuisance and private nuisance. Private nuisance refers to an unreasonable interference with the use or enjoyment of land. In order to sue in private nuisance, the claimant must have an interest in the land affected. This chapter examines the elements of liability in private and public nuisance and discusses the differences between them.. It also looks at the relationship between nuisance and fault-based liability and evaluates the human rights dimension to the law of nuisance.

scholarly journals Smith v Chief Constable of Sussex Police; [2008] UKHL; 50

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-152
Author(s):  
Carol Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Exclusive Focus

WHO HAS FIRST CLAIM ON “THE LOYALTY OF THE LAW”?Smith v Chief Constable of the Sussex Police (hereafter Smith) was heard by the House of Lords at the same time as Chief Constable of the Hertfordshire Police v Van Colle and another because they had two uniting factors. First, they both concerned the recurring question of the ambit of police liability in the situation described by Lord Bingham thus: “…if the police are alerted to a threat that D may kill or inflict violence on V, and the police take no action to prevent that occurrence, and D does kill or inflict violence on V, may V or his relatives obtain civil redress against the police, and if so, how and in what circumstances?”2  Secondly, considering the cases together highlighted the wider issue of the relationship between decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 (hereafter the HRA) and the development of the common law. The Law Lords embarked on a more extensive examination of these issues in Smith and thus that case will be the exclusive focus of this note.  In addition, the study of Smith raises questions regarding proposals for law reform as well as about judicial perceptions of policy priorities. 

The Human Rights Act 1998

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Principle Of Proportionality ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Civilized Society

Chapter 15 considers the way in which the Human Rights Act has incorporated the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights into English law. It considers how far Articles 8 and 10 have been used by the Strasbourg Court to establish a ‘right to know’. Freedom of information regimes have to grapple with the conflict between the citizen’s right to be informed and privacy. The chapter considers how the Strasbourg Court has sought to resolve the conflict by applying the principle of proportionality. It also considers the guidance given to the English courts by section 12 of the Human Rights Act and the relationship between judicial review in the Wednesbury sense and the approach of proportionality applicable where Convention rights are at stake. Lord Cooke said in R (Daly) v Home Secretary ‘the truth is some rights are inherent and fundamental to democratic civilized society’.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document