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.

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.

scholarly journals Winner of the SLS Annual Conference Best Paper Prize 2012

Legal Studies ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cora Chan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Baseline Level ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Annual Conference ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Proportionality Test

One of the most contested issues in UK public law is how to calibrate the appropriate intensity of proportionality review in human rights adjudication. Here, the challenge lies in formulating a theory of intensity of review that can both comply with the constitutional framework introduced by the Human Rights Act 1998 (‘HRA’) and accommodate courts' varying levels of competence in different areas of litigation. This paper attempts to sketch such a theory in two steps. First, it argues that to fulfil the constitutional expectations brought about by the HRA, a minimum rigour of proportionality review should be observed. This baseline consists of requiring the government to demonstrate to the courts by means of cogent and sufficient evidence that a rights-limiting measure satisfies the distinct stages of the proportionality test. Secondly, this paper highlights the ways in which compliance with this baseline can nonetheless accommodate the courts' varying levels of competence in different adjudicative contexts. In particular, courts can vary the intensity of review once the baseline level of review is reached and adjust the nature of the evidence required from the government.

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.

Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, House of Lords

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Case Note ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Parish Church ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Local Parish ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Definition Of

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Parochial Church Council of the Parish of Aston Cantlow, Wilmcote with Billesley v Wallbank [2003] UKHL 37, House of Lords. The underlying substantive issue in this case was the question of whether the Wallbanks were liable to pay for the repair of their local parish church. However, this case note focuses on the definition of public authorities under s. 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Public authorities are required to act in accordance with the HRA, and the Wallbanks contended that the Parochial Church Council was a public authority within the meaning of s. 6. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

The United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 in Theory and Practice

2001 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 901-953 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dominic McGoldrick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998

Thisessay assesses the significance of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act (HRA) 1998 on legal theory and practice. Part II considers its constitutional context and significance; Part III deals with whether the European Convention on Human Rights has been ‘incorporated’. Part IV deals with its entry into force. The two principal methods used by the HRA to relate to (1) statutory interpretation and (2) a duty on public authorities or those exercising public functions. We consider these in turn. Part V analyses the interpretative obligation contained in the Act, the power for higher courts to make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, and effects of such a declaration. Part VI explores the new statutory duty imposed by the Act. Part VII assesses the Act's remedial provisions. Part VIII notes the particular provision made for freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Part IX discusses the issues of ‘horizontal effect’ and the ‘margin of appreciation’. Part X concludes with an assessment of the significance of the HRA on legal theory and practice—just how big a difference has it made and will it make?

scholarly journals The Human Rights Act 1998: A Bridge between Citizenship and Justice?

2004 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 113-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Liberal Conception ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Political Citizenship ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Individual

This article discusses the implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It suggests that the HRA is designed to promote a classic liberal conception of political citizenship, which protects the individual from the exercise of arbitrary state power, and not to extend the role of the state as a welfare provider. It goes on to argue that the government has limited the effectiveness of the HRA by claiming that they are building a culture of rights and responsibilities whilst treating human rights as an issue for the courts rather than an issue for government and public authorities generally. The article concludes by discussing extending the HRA to include economic, social and cultural rights.

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.

F igure 5.9: procedure for bringing an action in the European Court of Human R ights • Domestic remedies must have been exhausted (Article 35). • Application to the ECtHR must be within six months of final hearing in the domestic court. • It must be an admissible application. • There can be a limited audience in a court of first instance (a chamber) relating to the matter. • Within three months a party can ask for a Grandchamber hearing. • Enforcement of the decision of the court is a matter for the Committee of Ministers. Here the matter reverts to the political level but a State who consistently abuses human rights can be expelled from the Council of Europe. The remedies under the English legislation allow for the following. Figure 5.10: remedies under the Human Rights Act 1998 • English courts and tribunals take account of cases in the ECtHR and other relevant courts and decide cases accordingly. • English courts can note whether legislation is incompatible with the Convention and if so issue a declaration of incompatibility. They have no power to declare primary or secondary legislation invalid, although they do have a power to invalidate secondary legislation if the primary legislation that it is based on does not forbid it. This severely limits the power of the judges to enforce the Convention rights. • If Parliament decides that the incompatibility should be dealt with there is a fast track procedure for delegated legislation to deal with the speedy removal of the incompatibility allowing a ‘remedial’ order to be enacted. • Public authorities can be fined for contravention of the Act. • Courts must act in a manner compatible with the Act. • All statutes must carry a declaration of compatibility with the HRA 1998 signed by the minister responsible for the original Bill stating that the legislation is not incompatible or if it is incompatible that the government intends the legislation to be incompatible. In keeping with the ‘hands on’ approach of this text, the HRA 1998 can be found in Appendix 2. Read it through quickly to get an idea of it and then carefully do the following exercise. You will also find two diagrams: the HRA 1998 sections and the HRA 1998 Schedules.

2012 ◽  
pp. 139-139
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The Political ◽  
Domestic Court ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Hands On ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
Court Of First Instance

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.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document