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.

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.

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.

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”.

19. Remedies

2021 ◽  
pp. 652-679
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The Public ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Explanatory Text ◽  
Primary Materials

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the remedies granted by the court. If a claimant successfully establishes that the public authority has acted in contravention of one of the grounds of review, then the court may grant a remedy. The purpose of a remedy is to tell the public authority what it has to do to comply with the judgment and to ensure, as far as possible, that it obeys the courts’ decision. There are two main types of remedies available in judicial review cases: ordinary remedies (injunction, declaration, and damages) and prerogative remedies (quashing order, prohibiting order, and mandatory order). The chapter also discusses situations that may cause the court to refuse a remedy and the courts’ powers to grant a remedy under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), including a declaration of incompatibility in accordance with section 4 HRA 1998.

15. The Parties to a Judicial Review: Who Can Make a Claim for Judicial Review and Against Whom Can a Claim for Judicial Review be Made?

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Webley ◽  
Harriet Samuels
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The People ◽  
Or Groups ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Complete Series ◽  
Or Organization

Titles in the Complete series combine extracts from a wide range of primary materials with clear explanatory text to provide readers with a complete introductory resource. This chapter discusses the bodies subject to judicial review and who can make claims for judicial review. An action for judicial review can be brought only against a body exercising a public function. If public authorities are carrying out a private function, they are not subject to judicial review unless there is a public law element. Private bodies are, generally, not subject to judicial review unless it can be shown that they are carrying out a public function, such as administering a statutory scheme. If the judicial review concerns human rights, then the claim must be brought against a public authority. The Human Rights Act 1998 creates two kinds of public authorities: core public authorities and functional public authorities. Core public authorities are public authorities, such as government departments and the police force. Functional public authorities have private and public functions, but only their public functions are subject to the Act. The rules of standing in judicial review cases determine whether individuals or groups are permitted to challenge a decision of a public body. An individual or organization may bring a claim for judicial review only with the permission of the courts, which means that standing restricts the people and organizations that may bring a judicial review claim.

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.

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 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?

Police

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Duncan Fairgrieve ◽  
Dan Squires QC
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
General Duty ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Controls ◽  
False Imprisonment

The police are subject to a range of different legal controls. They have a general duty to uphold the law, and breach of this duty can, in principle, be enforced by way of judicial review proceedings brought by members of the public. If, in the course of enforcing the law, the police detain, arrest, or assault an individual without lawful justification, they can be held liable for the torts of false imprisonment or trespass to the person, and they may also be held liable for the tort of misfeasance in public office if they act maliciously and unlawfully in the purported performance of their duties. as well as statutory torts specifically aimed at the police. The Human Rights Act 1998 provides further significant additions to the claims that can be brought against the police, and these are considered further in chapter 7. Claimants have also sought to establish that the police, like other public authorities, can be held liable for the tort of negligence, and it is such claims that are considered in this chapter.

Standing under the Human Rights Act 1998: Theories of Rights Enforcement & the Nature of Public Law Adjudication

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Miles
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Standing Test

The Human Rights Act enables applicants in judicial review and other legal proceedings to complain that a public authority has violated a Convention right, but only if they are “victims” of that violation. The victim standing test was adopted from the Strasbourg institutions without any consideration being given in Parliament to the appropriateness of such a test in the domestic context. It is argued that the suitability of a particular standing rule for a given jurisdiction cannot properly be evaluated until a theory explaining the juristic function of standing rules has been identified and articulated. Two theoretical aspects of standing rules in public law cases are suggested here, in order to provide a framework in which to assess the appropriateness of the victim test for judicial review cases raising Human Rights Act arguments.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document