responsibility and accountability Flashcards
revision
responsibility as liability
Products and consumer protection (Consumer Protection Act 1987).
Diminished utility of land.
Inconvenience and discomfort.
Visual intrusion and privacy.
Responsibility: Strict liability
Profit and risk of harm.
Insurance.
Incentive to guard against recklessness.
Original requirements: ACCUMULATION: D brings something onto own land which is likely to do mischief (Transco, 2004). ESCAPE: ‘thing’ escapes from land D controls (Read v Lyons [1947]). NON-NATURAL USE: ‘thing’ not naturally present on D’s land (Rickards v Lothian [1913]).
Responsibility: Product liability
Defective products.
Contract.
Donoghue v Stevenson: you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.
Legislation: possibility of strict liability.
Issue to consider: profit/risk, insurance, incentive to consider safety.
Responsibility: Consumer Protection Act 1987, bringing a claim
C: suffered damage covered by the CPA 1987 as a result of defective product (ss2(1) and 5(1).
Potential D’s (ss1(2) and 2(2)(a)-(c). Manufacturer, producer, supplier etc.
Damage suffered (s5) death or personal injury, property damage with value exceeding £275.
Responsibility: reliance on tech
Post Office Horizon Scandal case
Responsibility: extending the scope of nuisance claims
Visual intrusion.
Physical invasion of privacy.
Digital invasion of privacy.
HRA 1998.
Responsibility: nuisance protecting privacy (Giliker (2025))
Art 8 HRA 1998: right to respect for private and family life. McKenna v British Aluminium (2002).
Impact on value of land not distress to occupiers. Hunter v Canary Wharf (1997) only those with property rights could claim for private nuisance.
Favours those with rights over land.
Scope of visual intrusion. Fearn v Tate.
Responsibility: Fearn & Ors v Tate Gallery [2019, 2020, 2023]
Should re-interpret nuisance according to art 8 ECHR.
HRA indirect horizontal effect.
Relies on nuisance to respect privacy rights.
Onus on C to take protective measures.
Reluctant to extend nuisance to privacy.
Other methods to deal with C concerns.
Private nuisance and privacy not mutually exclusive.
Visual intrusion within scope of private nuisance. Foreseeable consequence. Intolerable interference with freedom to use enjoy property.
Responsibility: Bates & Ors v Post Office [2017].
Private prosecutions based on data from Horizon.
Responsibility: Hamilton & Ors v Post Office [2021]
Malicious prosecution.
Relevant to Horizons.
Accountability: public discourse and freedom of expression
Communication and conversation.
Shared experiences.
Investigation and reporting.
AI.
Public good.
Bridgen v Hancock [2024].
Blake & Ors v Fox [2023].
Banks v Cadwalladr [2022,2023].
Accountability: Language, meaning and interpretation.
Reasonable person; hypothetical reader.
What shapes understanding? CONTEXT.
Social media users.
Stocker v Stocker [2019].
Accountability: determining legal meaning
Consent: prudent patient.
Opinion: Influenced by experience, mood, and influence?
Truth: evidence?
Procedural assumptions: single meaning rule; judicial bias? Removal of juries.
Riley v Murray [2022].
Accountability: court determining meaning
‘Single, natural and ordinary meaning’ Koutsogiannis v Random House Group [2019].
‘Hypothetical reasonable reader’ test.
Meaning addressed as a preliminary issue (Koutsogiannis).
Accountability: ‘Chase’ levels of meaning
Chase v News Group Newspaper [2002]:
Level 1: Defamatory statement is direct allegation of C’s guilt.
Level 2: Defamatory statement alleges reasonable grounds to suspect guilt.
Level 3: Defamatory statement alleges grounds for investigation into C’s guilt.
Accountability: Sunday Times v UK [ECHR, 1979]
Publication of investigative journalism.
Use of injunctions to suppress info (subjudice, deep pockets, public interest, freedom of expression).
Manufacturer & distributor of thalidomide sued by families affected by thalidomide.
Accountability: Clarke v Guardian News & Media [2025]
Defamatory statements - preliminary issues: serious harm, meaning, fact or opinion.
Litigation process - 6 court hearings in 2025.
Current trial defences.
