16. Breach of Statutory Duty

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenny Steele
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Industrial Safety ◽  
Workplace Injuries ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
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 the action for breach of statutory duty, an action in tort meant to remedy harm caused by a breach of the duty. It first considers the distinctiveness of the tort of breach of statutory duty, with particular reference to the question of whether the breach gives rise to liability at common law. It then looks at case law involving civil liability for breach of industrial safety, citing Groves v Wimborne (Lord) [1898] 2 QB 402 and its significance in the context of workplace injuries. It also discusses cases dealing with ‘social welfare’ legislation and ‘public law duties’ as well as civil liberties before concluding with an assessment of the effect of the restrictive approach to the action for breach of statutory duty on the tort of negligence.

Still Awaiting Clarity: Why Victoria’s New Civil Liability Laws for Organisational Child Abuse Are Less Helpful than They Appear

2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Griffin ◽  
Gemma Briffa
Keyword(s):  
Child Abuse ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Royal Commission ◽  
Duty Of Care ◽  
High Court ◽  
Vicarious Liability ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
Institutional Responses

In 2017 Victoria became the first Australian jurisdiction to initiate substantive reforms to its civil liability laws, to address barriers faced by plaintiffs seeking to hold institutions liable for child abuse. The new law, based on recommendations arising from a Victorian inquiry, establishes a statutory duty of care owed by organisations to take reasonable precautions against abuse of children under their care or supervision. On its face, the Wrongs Amendment (Organisational Child Abuse) Act 2017 (Vic) looks like a helpful clarification of this complex area of law. However, when viewed within the context of the work of the Royal Commission on Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, as well as common law principles – particularly strict liability in the areas of non- delegable duty and vicarious liability, and the High Court decision of Prince Alfred College Inc v ADC – we see that barriers and uncertainties remain.

Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Glorious Revolution ◽  
The Glorious Revolution

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench. This case concerns questions of bias and, more importantly, the attempt by Sir Edward Coke CJ to establish a common law power to overturn Acts of Parliament. The case predates the constitutional settlement which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but echoes of the principles discussed in this case can also be found in modern case law. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Glorious Revolution ◽  
The Glorious Revolution

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Re Dr Bonham’s Case (1608) 8 Coke Reports 107a, 77 ER 638, Court of King’s Bench; Dr Bonham’s Case (1609) 8 Coke Reports 113b, 77 ER 646, Court of King’s Bench. This case concerns questions of bias and, more importantly, the attempt by Coke to establish a common law power to overturn Acts of Parliament. The case predates the constitutional settlement which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688, but echoes of the principles discussed in this case can also be found in modern case law. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb.

scholarly journals La responsabilité civile délictuelle des municipalités en matière d'entretien des rues et des trottoirs pendant l'hiver

2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-173
Author(s):  
Micheline McNicoll
Keyword(s):  
Civil Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Boundary Line ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Considerable Influence ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Proper Understanding

An exhaustive review of our case law is required for a proper understanding of municipalities' civil liability for offences and quasi-offences. It appears indeed that there is no other alternative since, on one hand, the legislator is mute on number of important relevant questions and, on the other hand, municipalities, are governed by rules of public law. Our review covering a period of about eighty years, contains an analysis of the three « schools of thought » that succesively exerciced considerable influence upon our court decisions. The different « schools of thought » naturally emerged from the constant opposition of public and private law divided by a boundary line subject to fluctuation.

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.

Developing the Jurisprudence of Constitutional Remedies for Breach of Fundamental Rights in South Africa: An Analysis of Hoffman and Related Cases

2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1&2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Chuks Okpaluba
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
South African ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Labour Law

In order to accomplish its objectives of extensively regulating rights and obligations, the 1996 Constitution of South Africa similarly provides for the enforcement of those rights by the courts. In turn, it has, in the said enforcement provisions, invested in the courts enormous discretionary powers to enable them to effectively deal with breaches of the entrenched fundamental rights as well as all constitutional rights violations. That the Constitutional Court has purposefully interpreted and made optimum use of the expressions: ‘appropriate relief’ and ‘just and equitable’ order in developing the constitutional remedies jurisprudence is crystal clear from a wealth of available case law. It is also not in doubt that the contributions of Justice Ngcobo (later Chief Justice) in this regard are intellectually gratifying. This presentation singles out for discussion and analysis the judgment of Ngcobo J in Hoffman v South African Airways 2001 (1) SA 1 (CC) which not only typifies judicial activism at its acme; it has also introduced into the South African public and labour laws, the novel remedy of ‘instatement.’ Apparently drawn from the analogy of the labour law remedy of reinstatement, ‘instatement’ is akin to the remedy of mandamus in public law, and specific performance in the law of contract. This article moves from the premise that this innovation is one of its kind in contemporary common law jurisprudence and one which courts in the common law jurisdictions world would no doubt emulate one fine day.

The Common Law Legal Tradition: First Things First

2021 ◽  
pp. 15-22
Author(s):  
Steven Gow Calabresi
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Primary Source ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
The Common ◽  
The Law

This chapter explains briefly the origins and development of the common law tradition in order to better understand the rise of judicial review in the seven common law countries discussed in this volume. The common law legal tradition is characterized historically, in public law, by limited, constitutional government and by forms of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation. In private law, the common law tradition is characterized by judge-made case law, which is the primary source of the law, instead of a massive code being the primary source of the law. The common law tradition is also characterized by reliance on the institution of trial by jury. Judges, rather than scholars, are the key figures who are revered in the common law legal tradition, and this is one of the key things that distinguishes the common law legal tradition from the civil law legal tradition. The common law legal tradition emphasizes judicial power, which explains why it has led to judicial review in the countries studied in this volume. It is the prevailing legal tradition in the four countries with the oldest systems of judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation: the United States, Canada, Australia, and India. Thus, judicial review of the constitutionality of legislation in these four countries is very much shaped by common law attitudes about the roles of judges.

14. Breach of statutory duty

Tort Law ◽  
2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Common ◽  
Civil Remedy

This chapter considers the tort of breach of statutory duty. Unlike the statutory duties contained in the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 or the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where liability arises directly according to the provisions of the statute itself, in a civil action in the tort of breach of statutory duty, liability arises indirectly where a statute imposes a duty but does not identify a civil remedy in the event of its breach. The tort is a combination of statute and the tort of negligence; the duty is defined by statute, while the action lies in the common law. It should be noted that while much of the case law arises in the employment context, the tort of breach of statutory duty extends beyond this.

14. Breach of statutory duty

2021 ◽  
pp. 397-406
Author(s):  
Kirsty Horsey ◽  
Erika Rackley
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Protection ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Civil Action ◽  
Consumer Protection Act ◽  
Statutory Duty ◽  
The Common ◽  
Civil Remedy

This chapter considers the tort of breach of statutory duty. Unlike the statutory duties contained in the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984 or the Consumer Protection Act 1987 where liability arises directly according to the provisions of the statute itself, in a civil action in the tort of breach of statutory duty, liability arises indirectly where a statute imposes a duty but does not identify a civil remedy in the event of its breach. The tort is a combination of statute and the tort of negligence; the duty is defined by statute, while the action lies in the common law. It should be noted that while much of the case law arises in the employment context, the tort of breach of statutory duty extends beyond this.

scholarly journals CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE MENTALLY DISORDERED PEOPLE

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahdis Riahy ◽  
Mahdi Esmaeile
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Iranian Law ◽  
Injured Party

Nowadays, mental disorders are some of the most common diseases in our societies. In most cases mentally disordered people will be having problems with the environment which they live, people around them and even themselves; with the probability of causing damage. The question is does the mentally disordered individual counts responsible for the consequences of his actions or not? If yes, then what type of liability is on his burden and who is responsible for redressing the damages? In any case, which a person is forced to redress another individuals damage he has civil liability against the injured party. Civil liability is a rational and jurisprudential principle, and also a legal maxim that guaranties remedies for faults of individuals inside a contract or any damages done by the acts of individuals outside of a contract. Considering the legal protection Provided for the incapacitated; liability of incapacitated individuals is an important subject of civil and criminal law. Since the sinister intention is essential for criminal liability; the minor and the insane do not have any criminal liability but insanity and minority are not among the disclaimers of civil liability. In some legal systems such as “Common Law” Civil liability of the incapacitated individuals and their wardens is under the rule of general civil liability regulation. However, in Iran I.R. liability of the incapacitated is clearly recognized by the article “1216” of Iranian Civil Code. In respect of the above, we will be researching about the psychotic and mentally ill individuals and their liability in Jurisprudence and Iranian Case Law. Point of this research is to clarify the conditions of the insane and mentally disordered in Iranian Law and the support given to them by the Legislators

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document