Negligence and the Liability of Public Authorities

1998 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-22
Author(s):  
Anthony Mason
Keyword(s):  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Memorial Lecture ◽  
Discretionary Power ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
University Of Edinburgh

This is a revised version ofthe third WA Wilson Memorial Lecture, delivered in the New Senate Hall ofthe University of Edinburgh on 8 May 1997. Traditionally the liability ofpublic authorities has been treated as a matter ofprivate law. The difficulty experienced by the courts in formulating viable principles governing liability for a negligent omission to exercise a power intended to be exercisedfor the protection of the public has led to an increased emphasis on the statutoryframework. This emphasis has resulted in a reluctance to uphold liability in cases where an authority is exercising discretionary power, culminating in the recent decision of the House of Lords in Stovin v Wise. This article examines Stovin v Wise in the light of earlier decisions, and suggests that the decision protects the public authority rather than the public in circumstances where there is much to be saidfor the view that, notwithstanding the public law distinction between a power and a duty, a public authority may be liable for an omission to take action to protect the public.

scholarly journals THE NEGLIGENCE LIABILITY OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES FOR OMISSIONS

2019 ◽  
Vol 78 (3) ◽  
pp. 545-569
Author(s):  
Tom Cornford
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public ◽  
The Common

AbstractIn this article I address the question of whether the omissions principle – the principle that the common law does not impose liability for omissions – applies with the same force in negligence cases involving public authority defendants as in cases involving private defendants. My argument is that the answer depends upon the answer to a prior question: can a duty of care be based upon the public law powers and duties of a public authority? In making my argument, I refute the views both of those who insist that a claim in negligence against a public authority can be rejected purely because it relates to an omission not falling within one of the standard exceptions to the omissions principle and of those who insist that such a claim can succeed while at the same denying that a duty of care can be based on a public authority's public law powers and duties.

10. Negligence: Duty of Care—Public Bodies

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Lunney ◽  
Donal Nolan ◽  
Ken Oliphant
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
The Political ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
The Public ◽  
Economic Considerations ◽  
Public Bodies

This chapter focuses on the negligence liability of public authorities. It discusses how negligence actions against public bodies may have both public and private law dimensions. The discussion of the public law dimension focuses on the mechanisms that have been employed in response to concerns about the political nature of some public authority decisions, and the fact that those decisions frequently involve the balancing of social or economic considerations, and the interests of different sections of the public. The discussion of the private law dimension of negligence actions against public bodies considers policy reasons for limiting the liability of public bodies and statutory responsibilities as a source of affirmative common law duties. The chapter concludes with a consideration of proposals for reform of the law in this area.

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.

Search for Principle - The Government's Liability in Negligence for the Careless Exercise of its Statutory Powers

2000 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 629
Author(s):  
Thomas Geuther
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Special Treatment ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
Supreme Court Of Canada ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
High Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
High Court Of Australia

For many years the English courts have struggled to develop a principled approach for determining when a public authority can owe a duty of care in respect of the exercise of its statutory powers. Initially, public authorities received no special treatment. Then the courts conferred an almost complete immunity on them, requiring public law irrationality to be established before considering whether a duty could arise. The English approach has not been adopted elsewhere in the Commonwealth. The High Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Canada have developed different tests, and the New Zealand courts, while never explicitly rejecting the English position, have never followed it. This paper argues that a modified version of the Canadian Supreme Court's approach should be adopted in New Zealand. It proposes that irrationality be a precondition to the existence of a duty of care only where policy considerations are proved to have influenced the decisions of a public authority in exercising its statutory powers.

International Composite Administration: Conceptualizing Multi-Level and Network Aspects in the Exercise of International Public Authority

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 2013-2039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armin von Bogdandy ◽  
Philipp Dann
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Common Phenomenon ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
Multi Level

The administration of the traditional nation-state used to operate as a rather closed system to the outside world. Today, cooperation between the public authorities of different States and between States and international bodies is a common phenomenon. Yet the characteristics and mechanics of such cooperation can hardly be understood using the concepts domestic public law or public international law currently on offer. Conventional concepts, such as federalism, confederalism or State-centered “realism” hardly fathom the complexity of interactions or reflect the changed role of the State, while more recent concepts, such as multi-level systems or networks, seem to encompass only parts of the phenomena at hand. Given this void, we propose to explore the notion of “composite administration” (Verbundverwaltung) and argue that it offers a concept which can combine more coherently the seemingly diverging legal elements of cooperation and hierarchy that distinguish administrative action in what often is called a multi-level administrative system. Even though the concept of composite administration was originally designed and further developed with respect to the largely federal European administrative space, we suggest testing the concept in the wider context of international cooperation. We believe that it offers valuable insights and raises critical questions, even though we do not intend to insinuate any proto-federal prospects of the institutions discussed in this paper.

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”.

Public authority negligence revisited

2000 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.H. Bailey ◽  
M.J. Bowman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
London Borough ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Borough Council ◽  
Legitimate Interests

Following on from earlier consideration of this issue by the same authors in the 1980s, this article examines the principles governing the negligence liability of public authorities as articulated in recent cases, and in particular the decisions of the House of Lords in X v. Bedfordshire, Stovin v. Wise and Barrett v. Enfield London Borough Council. It concludes that the various attempts to establish special principles to govern such liability have been misguided, and that the courts have proved too willing to reject claims on the basis of questionable policy considerations, to the extent that a blanket immunity might appear to have been established in some contexts. Ultimately, this approach has brought the United Kingdom into conflict with its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that ordinary private law principles provide a wholly appropriate basis for reconciling the legitimate interests of public authorities with the need to accord justice to individual litigants.

The Common Law, Reasons and Administrative Justice

1994 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
P.P. Craig
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
General Duty ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Private And Public ◽  
The Common ◽  
Home Department

The capacity of the common law to develop and evolve is well recognised within both private and public law. This is indeed one of its enduring qualities. The objective of the present article is not, however, to contribute to the jurisprudential debate concerning the nature of the adjudicative process at common law. My object is more modest. It is to consider and place in perspective some of the recent developments which have occurred at common law in relation to the duty of public authorities to provide reasons. It is a well known and oft repeated proposition that there is no general common law duty to furnish the reasons for a decision. It is equally well known that this proposition has been the target of regular attack by those who argue that such a general duty should exist. A reconsideration of both of these propositions is timely in the light of case law developments culminating in the House of Lords' judgment in R. v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p. Doody.

scholarly journals MEDIATION IN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING: MYTH OR REALITY NOWADAYS

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Administrative Law ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Modern World ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Acceptable Solution ◽  
The Public ◽  
Service Conception ◽  
Administrative Proceeding ◽  
State And Local ◽  
The One

In legal life of the modern world common ways of resolution to the legal disputes (conflicts) are not always efficient, since, as a rule, interests and needs of the one side and sometimes even of the both ones are left unsatisfied. Appeal to the public authorities because of each law conflict results in overloading of courts and administrative authorities. Implementation of other alternative ways of resolution of legal disputes, for example, such as mediation, can be an option to improvement of justice access and to reduction of court overloading. The article is devoted to reviewing the peculiarities of implementation of the method of mediation in administrative proceeding. It reports on attributes of administrative law conflict and also on peculiarities of conducting the procedure of mediation. Scholarly works of domestic scientists such as Sydelnikov O. D., Krasilovska Z. V., Lysko A., Mazaraki N. A. and others have been devoted to this problematique. Mediation - is a consensual and confidential procedure extrajudicial settlements of conflicts, in which a mediator helps the sides to understand their interests and search efficient ways of achieving mutually acceptable solution. The sphere of administrative disputes is the most difficult for implementation of mediation procedure. It is specified by typical peculiarities for such disputes and also by legal nature of subjects of administrative legal relationship. Exactly because of this, some scientists refer to partial nonmediability of such disputes, as one of the side in this case is always an organ of public authority. Approaching a compromise between public authority and a citizen is a prioritized direction of state and local authority activity. The procedure of mediation can be applied only in certain administrative disputes. In this case it is possible to single out advantages of implementation of the mediation procedure in dealing with administrative law conflict, they are effectiveness, saving funds and time, speed, confidentiality, unloading administrative courts, embodiment the principle of service conception of the state, the principle of the rule of law and proper management.

scholarly journals Theoretical and practical bases of the head's activity in formation and estimation of professional interests of public servants in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 71-80
Author(s):  
Dmytro Osypov
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Professional Competence ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Learning Ability ◽  
Professional Activity ◽  
Public Servants ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
The Public

In the article, the author proposes the structure of the reflexive-acmeological approach to the development of professional interests from the position of acmeology in the practical activities of the heads of public authorities and heads of the public service, which includes several aspects: educational and educational, professional and creative.The importance of professional education and assessment in the context of the topic of the article has been clarified and expanded, a two-factor model (cycle) of the formation of the professional interests of public servants (acmeological approach) has been proposed, and the tasks of personnel management in the field of public administration have been clarified as a cyclic use of stimulating and activating reserves of professional interests in the form of directions of activity.It is recommended to use specific acmeological approaches in the diagnosis (assessment) of the professional interests of public servants for heads of public authorities and public service leaders: problem; situational and systemic genetic.Professional education as a practical activity of leaders provides for the development of such qualities as: proper subjectivity – the formation of the life position of a «doer», «leader»; professional learning ability, education, and therefore – professional competence; tolerance as an understanding of the values of another person, as an acknowledgment of dissent; functional literacy. The components of the professional activity of the head of a public authority or the head of the public service are: mobility of professional skills; social determination of activity; integrity and completeness of work; subjective autonomy; feedback.Specific components of the professional activity of the head of a public authority or the head of a public service, which have a competence-based nature, as well as appropriate techniques are proposed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document