Breach Of Statutory Duty

Question 1

Consider a number of indicators

Answer 1

X v Bedfordshire CC

Campbell v Gorden (insolvent company with the defendant director)

Question 2

Is the Act passed for the benefit of a particular class?

Answer 2

Yes - points to actionability

Phillips (road users too big a class)
Lonrho v Shell (no class for supply of oil to Southern Rhodesia)
Morrison (no class for electricity meter)

BUT

Cutler v Wandsworth (bookmaker was a class but not the purpose of the Act)

Question 3

Is any other remedy or sanction provided?

Answer 3

No - points to actionability

Richardson v Pitt-Stanley (bankrupt: criminal penalty)
Cullen v CC (availability of judicial review for deferral of solicitor)

BUT

Groves (existence of fine did not prevent civil action)

Question 4

Nature of legislation

Answer 4

Social welfare? - unlikely for claim to be allowed

Ex parte Hague (regulatory character)
O’Rourke v Camden (eviction of homeless: social welfare statute)

Question 5

Would it support or contradict the common law?

Answer 5

• type of harm recognised: Pickering v LDP (no tort of privacy)
• comparison with fault: Phillips (much stricter)

Question 6

Scope

Answer 6

• claimant within particular class?

Pollard - recording companies not persons in 1958 Act.

Rickless v UAC - performers are within 1958 Act

• damage within ambit of statute?

Gorris v Scott - sheep loose, but attachment for disease)

Fytche v Wincanton - frostbite, but boots for injuries)

Question 7

Criticism

Answer 7

Breach of statutory duty = negligence per se (USA)

Breach of statutory duty = prima facie evidence of negligence (Canada)