DOC: Public Bodies Flashcards
Why do PB owe less duty than ordinary individual?
- not selfish actors
- money from central government
- effect of damages being paid means other PB activities are compromised
- separation of powers
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 s.2
removed “king could do no wrong”
- crown no longer has immunity of proceedings against it in tort
Causes of action against PB
X and Other (minors)
1) common law negligence
2) breach of statutory duty
3) misfeasance in public office
Now there are two more
4) Euro-tort (breach of EU law)
5) Violation of the specific obligations placed on public authorities (hRA 1998, s.6)
Home Office v Dorset Yacht (OBITER- what is non- justiciable)
If C claimed that setting up the day ITSELF was negligent
- that’s government’s decision on how to rehabilitate young offenders
- involves balancing out social/philosophical interests
- wrong for judges to make that assessment
Smith v MOD
Majority - not FJR
Minority - non-justiciable
- would involve looking back at decision by MOD re: budget
- courts can’t assess what would happen if they decided things differently
- POLITICAL intervention
- PRAGMATIC too
Connor v Surray CC
THREE WAYS of conceptualising justiciability
ONE - pragmatic
- limited expertise
- only C&D, who argues for wider concerns and competing issues?
TWO - political
- weighing up social interests is for government
THREE - constitutional
- parliamentary immunity should be given for decisions re: how to exercise powers given by government
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council
REJECTION OF ULTRA VIRES
instead:
1) acted within discretion?
2) policy or operational matter?
if both, then see if it is more policy - if yes, no DOC
Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council
REJECTED DISCRETION
instead:
only consider policy/operation regarding:
1) COMPETING SOCIAL FACTORS?
2) Did parliament mean for courts to substitute their view for authority’s decision?
Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council
affirmed social policy test
Carty v Croydon London Borough Council
Lord Dyson (CA)
- rejection of discretion test
- echoes scepticism about policy/operational test
CONFIRMS SOCIAL POLICY TEST
CONFIRMS LOOKING AT PARLIAMENT TEST
Stovin v Wise
Failure to exercise statutory power DOES NOT translate into a DOC in negligence
- Lord Hoffman (obiter): for it to translate into DOC, failure to exercise power must have breached local authorities’ public law obligations (i.e. been irrational)
Gorringe v Caldedale
NO doc for same reason as Stovin
- also sceptical about what Lord Hoffman said about irrationality but didn’t reject it entirely
X and Others (minors) - applying Caparo test
NOT FJR because
1) DELICATE and DIFFICULT was
2) UNDULY CAUTIOUS
3) Collaborative effort / multi-agency
4) divergence of resources
Barett v Enfield London Borough COuncil
re: not being put up for adoption
YES DOC
- applied M v Newham/X
- factors didn’t apply here
- so FJR to impose liability
Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council
courts looked at individual psychologist’s failure to do assessment properly
- assumption of responsibility means YES DOC
Lord Clyde doubted whether multi-agency could really prevent it being FJR
