Liability of the state and public authorities

Question 1

Is delictual liability part of JR?

Answer 1

No it is a separate course of actions

Question 2

Differences between JR and delict?

Answer 2

JR looks at decisions being reexamined, delict wants damages.

Question 3

Delictual causes of action

Answer 3

• assault
• deprivation of liberty
• harassment
• nuisance
• negligence
• breach of statutory duty

Question 4

Endicott’s 4 basic principles of government liability?

Answer 4

1) public bodies are liable
2) statute may otherwise otherwise delictual action
3) unlawful action doesn’t always give rise to damages claim
4) Courts will not impose liability where they would need to answer a non judicial qu.

Question 5

Where is the standard of liability to be found for breach of statutory duty?

Answer 5

In the statute

Question 6

Do all statues give rise to action?

Answer 6

No

Question 7

Major case for breach of statutory duty?

Answer 7

X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC (1995)

Question 8

What did judge in X (Minors) V Bedfordshire CC 1995 say?

Answer 8

• breach of S.D not itself ground for damages

Question 9

What conditions did the judge in X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC (1995)?

Answer 9

• Statue must be for protection of a limited class
• pARL MUST HAVE INTENDED IT TO CONFER RIGHTS of action
• if other remedies but not damages mentioned ins statute then should infer no damages

Question 10

Basic elements of a claim based on negligence

Answer 10

duty of care (foreseeability + proximity +fair just and reasonable)

Question 11

Leading case on duty of care

Answer 11

Caparo Industries plc v Dickman 1990

Question 12

X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC on negligence?

Answer 12

Careless exercise of statutory power not in itself actionable

Question 13

What other than careless use of power must be shown?

Answer 13

Duty of care and causation

Question 14

What is a condition thats stops acts being actionable?

Answer 14

Within scope of statutory discretion - can be v wide

Question 15

Acts beyond scope of discretion (UV) are actionable- test?

Answer 15

Wednesday unreasonableness

Question 16

Are questions of policy actionable?

Answer 16

No as non judicable

Question 17

Why were courts reluctant to impose duty of care in X (minors) v Bedfordshire CC social work cases?

Answer 17

As unfair if it would hinder them doing their jobs, too scared to act.

• Education it was fair though.

Question 18

Why did house of lord’s change stance on bound of liability?

Answer 18

Z v UK (2002)
(when X went to Europe)
said no remedy for treatment so breach of ECHR

Question 19

Has to be Wednesday Unreasonableness in exercise of duty

Answer 19

Stovin v Wise (1996)

Question 20

Facts of Stove v Wise (1996)?

Answer 20

Blind junction, visibility, said councils fault as responsible for road dafter. Said not reasonable to expect them to remove every danger from the road

Question 21

Phelps v Hillingdon LBC 20001

Answer 21

• took away public law hurdle

- acting outside discretion not a pre- donation for liability

Question 22

Mitchell V Glasgow 2005

Answer 22

• Scots law in line with English

Question 23

D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust 2005

Answer 23

• far just and reasonable part of test that usually trips them up
• pre trial, not sure what would have happened had they gone to court.

Question 24

Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire 1989

Answer 24

Did police owe duty of care to families of victims of jack the ripper?

No. Not fair just and reasonable to do so.

Question 25

Brooks v Metropolitan Police Commisioner 2005

Answer 25

Stephen Lawrence’s parents.

Police need higher standard to impose a duty of care.

Question 26

What case lays out the liability of the state in EU law?

Answer 26

Francovich 1991

• liability of MS for failure to enact directive

Question 27

Authority for damages caused by policy decision of EU institutions or MS in their duties

Answer 27

Art 340 TFEU

Question 28

Mulder v Council and Commission 1992 Facts

Answer 28

Cut back on subsidies

Farmers lost money and objected

Policy was unlawful

Managed to establish damages

Question 29

Basic elements of EU institutions liability in EU law?

Answer 29

• unlawful conduct

- damage to claimant

Question 30

Distinction between two types of action of EU institutions?

Answer 30

Higher standard for policy making than in cases of administration

Question 31

Strict test for liability in policy making context?

Answer 31

Schoppenstedt formula

altered now : see next question

Question 32

Current case for test?

Answer 32

Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergadem v Commission 2000

Question 33

Laboratories Pharmaceutiques Bergadem v Commission 2000 test?

Answer 33

• law must intend to confer rights
• sufficiently serious breach
• direct causal link between breach and damages
• (seriousness of breach : clarity if the rule, measure of discretion,
• must their be a clearly defined group?

Question 34

ECHR Art 41 says?

Answer 34

Must provide remedies for injured parties

• often = altered rule not damages

Question 35

HRA S8 says?

Answer 35

Us policy on when and how much damages due.

- domestic courts can award damages but only in line with when ECHR would

Question 36

Provisions in SA 1998 s100 on it

Answer 36

• dealing with Acts of Scottish Parl
• must be the victim to bring cases on convention
• easier to prove a violation has occurred

Question 37

Liability for HR violations: Osman v UK (2000)

Answer 37

Under very high circumstances Art 2 (right to life) should be allowed.

-Teacher obsessed with pupil, shot father, police negligence

Question 38

Liability for HR: Z v UK

Answer 38

Art 3 ( positive duty aspect) - in some cases state has a duty to act

Question 39

Basic negligence claim may succeed on HR claim if you can establish HR breach

Answer 39

Z v UK

Question 40

Van Colle v Chief Constable of Hertfordshire 2008

Answer 40

case unsuccessful but said HRA argument on negligence claim in principle okay to

Question 41

Anufrijeva v Southward LBC 2004

Answer 41

Money given to asylum seekers not enough, continued degrading treatment.

Valid argument.