Atjaunināt sīkdatņu piekrišanu

Negligence Liability of Public Authorities [Hardback]

(Barrister, Matrix Chambers), (Barrister, Matrix Chambers)
  • Formāts: Hardback, 1004 pages, height x width x depth: 255x177x63 mm, weight: 2071 g
  • Izdošanas datums: 19-Jan-2006
  • Izdevniecība: Oxford University Press
  • ISBN-10: 0199265410
  • ISBN-13: 9780199265411
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
Negligence Liability of Public AuthoritiesPalielināt
  • Formāts: Hardback, 1004 pages, height x width x depth: 255x177x63 mm, weight: 2071 g
  • Izdošanas datums: 19-Jan-2006
  • Izdevniecība: Oxford University Press
  • ISBN-10: 0199265410
  • ISBN-13: 9780199265411
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
Permanent link: https://www.kriso.lv/db/9780199265411.html
Keywords:
This is a thorough account of the law on the negligence liability of public authorities, providing practical guidance as well as a clear analysis of this developing area of law.

Divided into two Parts, the first part focuses on the extent to which the public nature of a defendant affects civil liability and the principles that govern and limit that liability. Part two considers the law as it impacts upon specific areas of public authorities' activities. This is an invaluable resource for barristers and solicitors specializing in public law, professional negligence, local government law, or specific areas such as education, healthcare, housing, and civil actions against the police and for lawyers employed by local authorities, regulators, and those professionals involved in the delivery of the service of public authorities.

Recenzijas

This is a blockbuster book....This excellent analysis will be invaluable for the courts, for litigators and for others who contemplate the kaleidoscopic intricacies. * Julian Fulbrook, THES *

Table of Cases
xxix
Table of Legislation
liii
Introduction 1(4)
Structure of a Negligence Claim 5(2)
The Problem of Public Authority Negligence Liability
Why Has the Search for Stable Principles Proven so Elusive?
7(22)
The intersection between private and public law
9(3)
Public law hurdles
12(2)
Liability for omissions
14(4)
The intersection of law and politics
18(4)
Protecting public authorities and compensating the deserving
22(7)
Trends in the Law
29
Public authorities treated like private parties: pre 1970s
30(1)
Recognition of significance of public nature: 1970 to late 1980s
31(2)
Public policy restrictions on duties: late 1980s to late 1990s
33(2)
Rejection of blanket policy considerations: late 1990s to mid 2000s
35(2)
Growth of alternative methods for limiting liability: mid 2000s onwards
37
Justiciability
Introduction
01(8)
Overview of Justiciability
2(3)
Development of the law
5(2)
Structure of this chapter
7(2)
The Meaning of Justiciability
9(12)
Technical/functional competence of court to resolve dispute
11(2)
Issues unsuitable for judicial resolution
13(2)
Polycentric disputes
15(3)
Place of the courts within the democratic process
18(3)
Tests for Determining Justiciability
21(38)
The approach taken in the Dorset Yacht and X cases
22(1)
Ultra vires decisions and public law hurdles
23(6)
The policy/operational distinction
29(5)
Criticism of the vires and policy/operational tests
34(8)
The approach to justiciability in the Barrett and Phelps cases
42(1)
Departure from strict vires test
43(2)
Departure from strict policy/operational test
45(1)
Summary of justiciability in the Barrett and Phelps cases
46(4)
Evaluation of the Barrett and Phelps approach
50(1)
Meaning of `justiciability' unclear
51(2)
Problems of use of vires test and policy/operational distinction
53(2)
Meaning of `suitability' for judicial determination
55(4)
Applications of Justiciability Tests to Particular Areas of Law
59(20)
Detention
60(2)
Education and social services
62(3)
Police and emergency services
65(3)
Armed forces
68(1)
Health policy, and health and safety regulators
69(3)
Highways
72(1)
Land use
73(2)
Summary of factors considered in determining justiciability
75(4)
An Alternative Approach to Justiciability
79(6)
Focus on the `form' of a decision
80(2)
Application to decided cases
82(1)
Rationale for approach
83(2)
Underlying Difficulty of Justiciability Determinations
85
Duty of Care
Introduction
1(3)
Meaning of `duty of care'
2(2)
Determining Whether a Duty of Care is Owed
4(21)
The Anns approach and its decline
4(2)
Incrementalism
6(1)
Incrementalism and public authorities
7(2)
Development of the Caparo tripartite test
9(4)
When is the tripartite test applicable?
13(1)
Pure economic losses
14(1)
Direct and indirect infliction of physical injury
15(7)
The elements of the tripartite test
22(3)
Caparo Test: Foreseeability
25(2)
Caparo Test: Proximity
27(13)
Meaning of proximity
28(3)
Grounds for denying proximity
31(1)
Claimant as indistinguishable from general public
31(6)
Conflicting duties owed to someone other than claimant
37(3)
Grounds for establishing proximity
40(19)
Categorical relationships
41(1)
Analogous categories
42(1)
`Special relationships' and `assumption of responsibility'
43(16)
Rationale for proximity rules
59(6)
Liability to unlimited class
60(4)
Rationale for proximity rules in conflict cases
64(1)
Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Duty of Care
65(14)
The decisions in the Osman and Z cases
65(1)
The Osman case
65(4)
Z v United Kingdom
69(1)
The continuing impact of Article 6 following the Z case
70(1)
Procedural versus substantive bars to access to the court
70(3)
Article 6 and public policy
73(1)
The legacy of the Osman decision
74(5)
Pure Economic Losses
79(17)
Rationale for restrictions on liability for economic losses
80(4)
Categorizing losses as economic or physical in defective property cases
84(1)
Circumstances in which liability can be imposed for pure economic losses
85(4)
Public authorities and pure economic losses
89(1)
Purchasers of defective property
90(1)
Over-zealous and careless regulation
91(3)
Inaccurate advice
94(2)
Psychiatric Harm
96(8)
Primary victims
98(1)
`Participants' in traumatic events
99
Work-related stress
10(92)
Rescuers
102(1)
Secondary victims
103(1)
Omissions
104
Rationale for act/omission distinction
105(4)
Proximity and omissions
109(1)
When can liability be imposed for a pure omission?
110(1)
Failure to exercise statutory powers
111(10)
Affirmative duties to act at common law
121(4)
`General reliance'
125(5)
Distinguishing between acts and omissions
130(1)
Creation of danger
131(2)
Precluding alternative means of protection
133
Arguments of Public Policy
Introduction: The Third Limb of the Caparo Test
1(6)
Applicable policy considerations
3(2)
Principles underpinning policy concerns
5(1)
Trends in the law
6(1)
Public Policy Arguments
7(79)
The remedying of wrongs and private party analogies
7(3)
Rationale for private party analogies
10(1)
Direct infliction of physical harm
11(1)
Private party analogies in cases not involving direct infliction of physical harm
12(5)
Diversion of resources
17(1)
Traditional arguments
17(3)
Counter-arguments
20(4)
Analysis of resources arguments
24(2)
Defensive practices
26(1)
Traditional arguments
26(5)
Counter-arguments
31(4)
Analysis of defensiveness arguments
35(3)
The current approach to defensiveness arguments
38(5)
Delicate relationships and multi-disciplinary practices
43(1)
Traditional arguments
43(2)
Current approach
45(1)
`Flood-gates'
46(1)
Traditional arguments
47(2)
Counter-arguments
49(2)
Analysis of flood-gates arguments and the courts' current approach
51(4)
Alternative remedies
55(1)
Traditional arguments
55(2)
Counter-arguments
57(2)
The courts' current approach and analysing alternative remedies arguments
59(15)
Duty of care and underlying purpose of public authority powers
74(1)
Nature of policy consideration
74(2)
Regulatory authorities
76(3)
Non-regulatory authorities
79(6)
Benefits of imposing a duty of care
85(1)
Conclusion: Changing Approaches to the `Fair, Just and Reasonable' Limb
86
The policy considerations rejected in the Barrett and Phelps cases
87(3)
Shift to other techniques to limit liability
90(5)
Shift from `consequential' to `separation of powers' arguments
95(4)
Evidence and public policy arguments
99
Other Aspects of Negligence Claims
Introduction
1(1)
Breach of Duty and Standard of Care
2(41)
Application of the Bolam test
3(1)
When will a defendant be regarded as a `professional'?
4(2)
First limb of the Bolam test
6(1)
Second limb of the Bolam test
7(1)
The Bolam test and causation
8(1)
The Bolam test and public authorities
9(5)
Limits of the Bolam test
14(2)
The standard of care when responding to an emergency
16(1)
Lack of time for considered thought and other relevant circumstances
17(3)
Weighing public benefit of defendant's activities
20(12)
Failure to follow government guidance
32(1)
Negligence and ultra vires acts
33(2)
Resource constraints on public authorities and the standard of care
35(3)
Can liability be established without proving fault?
38(5)
Causation
43(4)
Factual causation
44(1)
Legal causation
45(2)
Damages
47(9)
Personal injury
49(1)
Pecuniary losses
50(2)
Non-pecuniary losses
52(2)
Damage to property
54(1)
Damages in educational and social services cases
55(1)
Vicarious and Direct Liability
56(9)
Unauthorized acts
58(4)
Public authorities and direct liability
62(3)
Strike-out Applications and Summary Judgment
65
Procedural framework
66(1)
Changes brought about by the CPR
67(2)
Relationship between summary judgment and strike-out applications
69(1)
Summary judgment of factual issues
70(4)
Determining whether a duty of care is owed at preliminary hearings
74(1)
The impact of the decision in Osman v United Kingdom
75(7)
The decision in Z v United Kingdom
82(2)
The current approach to summary dismissal of claims for wants of duty of care
84
Alternative Remedies
Introduction
1(1)
Misfeasance in Public Office
2(29)
Introduction
2(2)
Elements of the tott
4(1)
Exercise of public power by public officer
4(6)
Mental elements
10(10)
Damages in misfeasance claims
20(1)
Is proof of loss necessary?
20(4)
Exemplary damages in misfeasance claims
24(3)
Vicarious liability
27(3)
Vicarious liability and exemplary damages
30(1)
Breach of Statutory Duty
31(32)
Introduction
31(1)
Breach of statutory duty and negligence claims
32(1)
Does breach of statutory duty give rise to right to damages?
33(4)
Duties imposed to protect particular class of person
37(9)
Alternative means of enforcing statute
46(5)
Alternative approach: statutes imposing welfare or administrative duties
51(10)
Standard of care and causation
61(2)
Judicial Review
63(2)
Non-judicial Means of Obtaining Redress
65(1933)
Ombudsmen
66(1)
Complaints of maladministration
67(3)
Remedies
70(1)
Complaints to the Ombudsmen and legal remedies
71(1)
Advantages and disadvantages of pursuing complaints through Ombudsmen
72(4)
Internal complaints procedures
76(1922)
Human Rights Act
1998
Introduction
1(2)
The Structure of the HRA
3(2)
The Definition of a `Public Authority' Under the HRA
5(16)
The provisions of the HRA
5(3)
Pure public authorities
8(3)
Hybrid bodies
11(2)
Institutional connection between defendant and central or local government
13(3)
Function performed by the defendant
16(2)
Criticism of approach taken to definition of `hybrid public authorities'
18(3)
The European Convention on Human Rights: General Principles
21(872)
Convention rights imposing positive obligations
21(1)
Standard of care in positive obligations cases
22(4)
Margin of appreciation and discretionary area of judgment
26(2)
The European Convention on Human Rights: Convention Rights
28(66)
Article 2: right to life
29(1)
Nature of the obligation under Article 2
29(2)
Article 2 and common law negligence claims
31(7)
Article 2 and specific public authorities
38(16)
Article 3: prohibition on inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
54(3)
Ill-treatment falling within the ambit of Article 3
57(5)
Knowledge of ill-treatment
62(1)
Nature of public authorities' obligations under Article 3
63(3)
Children abused by public authority employees
66(2)
Investigations of child abuse allegations
68(1)
Article 8: failure to prevent interference with private and family life and home
69(1)
Article 8 in child care cases
70(7)
Environmental harm and interference with the home
77(14)
Article 2 of the First Protocol: the right to education
91(3)
Damages Under the HRA
94(32)
HRA principles for determining damages
96(2)
Must the claimant establish fault to be awarded damages?
98(2)
The approach taken by the European Court of Human Rights
100(1)
Applicable principles
100(3)
Causation
103(2)
Heads of loss
105(4)
Quantum of damages in specific areas
109(9)
UK courts' decisions on damages under the HRA
118(1)
Relationship between the HRA and domestic tort claims
118(1)
Damages in cases with common law analogues
119(2)
Damages under the HRA in maladministration and Article 6 cases
121(5)
The HRA and the Development of the Common Law
126
The D case
127(2)
The Mowan case
129(1)
HRA undermining traditional policy arguments
130(2)
Other reasons for altering the common law
132
Social Services
Introduction
1(4)
Recent developments in the law
3(2)
General Principles
5(46)
Breach of statutory duty
5(2)
Common law duty of care
7(1)
Introduction and summary of law
7(3)
The decision in the X case
10(3)
The policy factors in the X case
13(2)
The development of the law following the X case
15(9)
The current law
24(17)
Standard of care
41(1)
Application of the Bolam test
42(2)
Children injured in accidents at home
44(1)
Children abused in institutional care
45(1)
Vicarious liability
46(1)
Conduct in the `course of employment'
47(1)
Is the tortfeasor an employee of the defendant?
48(1)
Damages
49(2)
Specific Instances of Social Service Negligence
51(79)
Responses to evidence of abuse
51(1)
Over-zealous investigation of abuse
52(2)
Failure to protect children from harm
54(1)
Children not properly looked after while in local authority care
55(1)
Negligent decisions as to upbringing of child in care
56(4)
Accidental physical injuries to child in care
60(1)
Children abused by foster parents and adopting parents
61(4)
Deliberately inflicted physical and sexual abuse of those in care
65(1)
Vicarious liability for deliberately inflicted physical harm and sexual abuse
66(1)
Negligent failure to prevent abuse
67(2)
Limitation periods in child abuse cases
69(18)
Damages in abuse cases
87(15)
Harm caused by children for whom a public authority is responsible
102(1)
Harm caused to adopting and fostering parents
102(11)
Harm caused to third parties
113(3)
Registration of care providers
116(3)
Harm caused by an unsuitable care provider
119(3)
Financial losses caused to care providers
122(8)
Appendix
130
Damages Awarded in KR v Bryn Alyn Community Ltd
130
Education
Introduction
1(3)
Trends in the law
1(2)
Structure of this chapter
3(1)
Accidents, Health and Physical Safety of Pupils
4(49)
Duty of care
4(1)
Introduction
4(2)
Accidents on school premises outside regular school hours
6(4)
Injuries suffered by pupils while not under the care of the school
10(4)
Standard of care
14(2)
Reasonable level of supervision
16(1)
Reasonable parent or reasonable educator?
17(7)
Does the Bolam test apply to health and safety at school?
24(4)
Determining the standard of care in specific situations
28(1)
Failure to follow guidance
29(1)
Causation and damages
30(1)
Vicarious liability
31(1)
Vicarious liability and unauthorized acts
32(2)
Direct and vicarious liability
34(1)
Specific instances of physical injury suffered at school
35(1)
Injuries sustained during supervised activity in school
36(2)
Injuries sustained playing sports
38(2)
Injuries sustained in the playground during break-time
40(2)
Injuries sustained at school before or after the school day
42(2)
Injuries sustained during off-site activities organized by the school
44(2)
Injuries sustained in transportation of pupils to and from school
46(1)
Injury to children escaping school premises
47(6)
Educational Negligence
53(75)
Nature of duty of care
53(2)
Educational professionals who owe a duty of care
55(1)
Educational psychologists
55(2)
Classroom teachers and head-teachers
57(4)
Education officers
61(2)
Liability for poor quality of teaching
63(4)
Standard of care
67(3)
Causation
70(1)
Application of `but for' test
71(2)
Nature of `different outcome' that must be established
73(1)
Damages and the nature of injury suffered in educational negligence claims
74(1)
Failure to ameliorate a congenital learning difficulty
75(3)
Psychological harm
78(3)
Is educational harm a form of personal injury or an economic loss?
81(12)
Assessment of quantum
93(1)
Non-pecuniary losses
94(3)
Pecuniary losses
97(2)
Alternative approach: awarding a fixed sum in damages
99(3)
Vicarious and direct liability
102(9)
Limitation period
111(1)
Applicable limitation period
112(2)
Date of knowledge in educational negligence claims
114(7)
Discretionary extension of limitation period
121(5)
Costs and importance of identifying negligence precisely
126(2)
Bullying
128
Introduction
128(1)
Statutory framework
129(1)
Duty of care
130(1)
Is there a duty to prevent bullying which occurs off school premises?
131(2)
Was the claimant a victim of bullying?
133(2)
Standard of care
135(1)
Bolam test
135(1)
Failure to follow guidance on bullying
136(1)
Causation
137(1)
Damages
138
Police
Introduction
1(2)
General Principles
3(32)
Vicarious liability
3(1)
Statutory provision
3(1)
Vicarious liability for unauthorized acts
4(5)
Duty of care
9(2)
Distinguishing between cases in which the Caparo tripartite test does and does not apply
11(5)
Proximity
16(6)
Policy considerations
22(13)
Specific Instances of Police Negligence
35
Harm caused directly by the police
35(1)
Negligent driving
36(3)
Discharge of firearms and similar devices
39(5)
Damage caused during a search of premises
44(2)
Other examples
46(1)
Failure to deal with hazards created by third parties
47(1)
Pure failure to deal with a hazard
48(2)
Taking responsibility for a hazard
50(3)
Failure to prevent crime
53(1)
Overview of current law
53(2)
Unknown members of the public as victims
55(1)
Police officers as victims of crime
56(9)
Victim known to be at particular risk
65(6)
Presence of police officers at the scene of a crime
71(3)
Police informants as victims of crime
74(5)
Liability to victims and witnesses for manner crime investigated
79(1)
General exclusion of liability
79(3)
Provision of counselling and support
82(2)
Failure to protect victim from harassment
84(3)
Investigation not intended to lead to conviction
87(3)
Liability to suspects for manner crime investigated and prosecuted
90(1)
General exclusion of liability
90(3)
Investigation for the purpose of the prosecution of the claimant
93(3)
Police disciplinary investigations
96(2)
Circumstances in which a duty may be owed to suspects
98(4)
Individuals injured while attempting to evade arrest
102(3)
Liability to representatives of suspects
105(1)
Psychiatric harm
106(2)
Protection from physical injury
108(1)
Economic losses
109(1)
Property damage
110(1)
Property not properly protected by the police
111(2)
Removal of vehicles
113(2)
Property used in the investigation of crime
115(2)
Claims brought by police officers
117(1)
Personal injury
118(2)
Economic loss
120(1)
Liability arising from detention and the provision of emergency services
121
Detention
Introduction
1(2)
Liability to Individuals Harmed While in Detention
3(20)
Introduction
3(1)
Detainees accidentally injured
4(1)
Detainees deliberately injured by others in detention
5(1)
Duty of care
5(1)
Standard of care and causation
6(6)
Liability for suicide or self-harm of detainees
12(1)
Knowledge of suicide risk
13(2)
Reasonable steps to prevent suicide
15(5)
Significance of suicidal prisoner being of sound mind
20(2)
Individuals injuring themselves while attempting to escape detention
22(1)
Detainees Harmed by Decision to Release Them From Custody
23(11)
Detainee at physical risk
23(2)
Released detainee at risk of other forms of harm: the Clunis case
25(2)
Duty of care
27(3)
Ex turpi causa
30(4)
Liability for Failure to Release an Individual From Custody
34(15)
Article 5 and claims for false imprisonment
35(3)
Negligence claims
38(1)
Is there any continuing role for negligence claims?
38(2)
When will a duty of care be owed?
40(9)
Crimes Committed by Individuals Escaping or Released From Custody
49
Harm caused during course of escape
50(4)
Harm caused to unknown members of the public
54(2)
Cases lying between the Dorset Yacht and the Palmer and K cases
56
Emergency Services
Introduction
1(2)
Matters of General Application
3(10)
Justiciability
3(3)
Duty of care
6(1)
Directly inflicted physical harm
6(1)
Failure to prevent harm
7(1)
Standard of care
8(1)
Application of the Bolam test
8(2)
The standard of care when responding to an emergency
10(3)
Liability of the Different Emergency Services
13(25)
Fire services
13(1)
Introduction
13(1)
Proximity
14(6)
Liability for non-fire fighting functions
20(1)
Policy considerations
21(3)
Breach of statutory duty
24(1)
Coast guards
25(1)
Introduction
25(1)
Proximity
26(3)
Policy considerations
29(2)
Police
31(1)
Failure to prevent harm
32(1)
Positive creation of danger
33(1)
Ambulance service
34(1)
Failure to respond to an emergency call
34(4)
Current Law on Emergency Services and Areas of Difficulty
38
Should the Kent case be applied to coast guards?
39(2)
The effect of the Barrett, Phelps and Gorringe cases on emergency services
41(5)
Third parties ceasing rescue because of involvement of emergency services
46
Health and Safety Regulators
Introduction
1(4)
Definitions and sources of regulators' powers
2(2)
The nature of regulation
4(1)
General Principles: Duty of Care
5(28)
The Caparo test
6(2)
Application of the Caparo test: directly and indirectly inflicted physical damage
8(7)
The elements of the Caparo test
15(1)
Proximity
16(2)
Public policy
18(8)
Liability for pure economic losses
26(1)
Requirements for imposing liability
26(3)
Purchase of unsafe property
29(2)
Commercial interests affected by regulation
31(1)
Negligent misstatement made by regulatory authority
32(1)
Specific Areas of Regulation
33
Transport
33(1)
Introduction
33(1)
The regulatory framework
34(4)
Physical damage to property or persons
38(15)
Economic losses
53(6)
Building regulators
59(1)
The regulatory framework
59(1)
Economic losses caused to purchasers of defective premises
60(12)
Physical damage to person or property
72(11)
Safety regulation of commercial premises and machinery
83(1)
The regulatory framework
83(2)
Physical damage to persons or property
85(1)
Economic losses
86(11)
Animals
97(1)
The regulatory framework
97(1)
Economic losses
98(3)
Physical damage to persons or property
101(1)
Sports regulators
102(1)
The regulatory framework
102(2)
Facilities and safety equipment
104(5)
Formulation of rules of a sport
109(2)
Social services
111
Planning, Environmental, Banking and Professional Regulation
Introduction
1(2)
Planning Authorities
3(30)
The regulatory framework
3(2)
Types of negligence claim brought against planning authorities
5(1)
Property damage and personal injury
6(1)
Third party primarily responsible for property damage or personal injury
7(9)
Planning authority itself responsible for creating source of danger
16(4)
Economic losses occasioned by determination of planning permission
20(5)
Economic losses occasioned by negligent advice given by planning authorities
25(3)
Assumption of responsibility
28(1)
Reasonable reliance
29(3)
Establishing liability
32(1)
Environmental Authoriteis
33(14)
Introduction
33(1)
The regulatory framework
34(5)
Personal injury and damage to property
39(1)
Danger created by regulatory authority
39(1)
Failure to control a third party
40(5)
Economic losses
45(2)
Banking Regulators
47(12)
The regulatory framework
47(2)
Liability in tort
49(1)
Claims in negligence against financial regulators
50(7)
Misfeasance in public office
57(2)
Bodies Regulating Professions
59
Introduction
59(2)
Economic losses
61(1)
Professionals harmed by investigation or disciplinary action
62(3)
Claims brought by members of public
65(3)
Physical harm
68(1)
Failure to investigate or discipline dangerous practitioners
68(2)
Failure to provide general warnings and advice to practitioners
70
Highways
Introduction
1(5)
The Highways Act 1980
2(1)
Historical development
3(2)
Statutory and common law claims
5(1)
Breach of Statutory Duty: Highways Act 1980, s 41
6(25)
Nature of the duty
6(1)
Meaning of `maintain' the highway
7(10)
Injury caused by defects in the highway
17(1)
Injury must be physical
18(1)
Standard of care and the statutory defence
19(1)
Maintaining the highway free from danger
19(3)
Statutory defence
22(5)
Standard of care and accumulation of ice and snow
27(4)
Common Law Claims: General Principles
31(24)
Relationship between breach of statutory duty and common law claims
31(2)
Duty of care
33(1)
The decision in Gorringe and the distinction between acts and omissions
34(6)
Precluded pure omissions cases
40(1)
Liability for acts
41(10)
Standard of care
51(1)
Taking account of dangerous drivers
52(1)
Application of the Bolam test
53(1)
Resources
54(1)
Specific Instances of Common Law Negligence Claims
55
Construction of roads
55(1)
Highway barriers
56(6)
Other dangers in the construction of roads
62(1)
Policy considerations and road construction
63(2)
Street lighting
65(1)
Street lighting itself posing physical hazard
66(1)
Positioning of street lighting misleading motorists
67(1)
Failure to exercise power to light the highway
68(3)
Road signs
71(2)
Road signs posing physical hazard
73(2)
Road signs misleading motorists
75(1)
Failure to exercise power to provide signs
76(2)
Failure to deal with accumulation of ice, snow or water on the highway
78(4)
Obstructions to visibility on the highway
82
Housing and Land Use
Introduction
1(2)
Other Causes of Action Available to Claimants
3(14)
Nuisance
5(1)
Elements of the tort
5(6)
Defence of statutory authority
11(4)
Rylands v Fletcher
15(1)
Non-natural usage
16(1)
Careless Performance of Statutory Housing Functions
17(8)
Homelessness
18(1)
Breach of statutory duty
19(1)
Negligence claims
20(1)
`Right-to-buy' legislation
21(1)
Negligent valuation
22(2)
Negligent failure to disclose defects
24(1)
Liability for Misbehaviour of Third Parties
25(43)
Justiciability of claim
26(1)
The distinction between tenants and licensees/trespassers
27(1)
Liability for the misbehaviour of tenants
28(1)
Claims in nuisance
29(9)
Claims in negligence
38(8)
Derogation from grant
46(3)
Liability for the misbehaviour of licensees/trespassers
49(1)
Interference with enjoyment of land
50(1)
Interference arising from `use' of the defendant's land
51(2)
Nuisance `continued' or `adopted' by the local authority
53(4)
Evidence needed to establish that nuisance was continued or adopted
57(4)
Is mere knowledge of a nuisance always sufficient?
61(4)
Criticism of the distinction between tenants and licensees/trespassers
65(3)
Environmental Harm
68
Acts and omissions
69(1)
Sewerage
70(1)
Failure to build or improve sewers
70(5)
Nuisance created by positive act of sewerage undertaker
75(1)
Noise and pollution from other sources
76(1)
Public authority acting pursuant to statutory scheme
76(1)
Public authority not acting pursuant to statutory scheme
77(1)
Land used in the public interest
78(5)
Environmental hazards not arising from `use' of defendant's land
83
Armed Forces
Introduction
1(2)
Statutory Immunity: Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 10
3(10)
Time and place of injury
6(5)
Crown immunity and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights
11(2)
Repeal of Statutory Immunity
13(2)
Combat Immunity
15(6)
Rationale for combat immunity
16(3)
Combat immunity and the identity of the claimant
19(1)
Acts of State
20(1)
Specific Examples of Claims Against the Armed Forces
21
Active engagement with the enemy
22(3)
Careless planning of military operations
25(2)
Peacekeeping and policing operations carried out by Armed Forces
27(3)
Injuries sustained during training
30(3)
Injuries unconnected to combat
33(1)
Vicarious liability
34(2)
Pure economic losses suffered by members of the Armed Forces
36(1)
Disputes as to terms of service
37(2)
Negligent misstatement
39
Miscellaneous Public Authority Functions
Health Warnings and Health Policy
1(15)
Introduction
1(1)
Health information and warnings
2(1)
Failure to provide health warnings
2(7)
Provision of misleading health information
9(3)
Health policy
12(1)
Licensing of drugs
13(1)
Failure to withdraw unsafe drugs
13(2)
Economic losses to drugs manufacturers
15(1)
Provision of Social Security Benefits
16(8)
Introduction
16(1)
Statutory appeal mechanisms available
17(2)
No statutory appeal mechanisms available
19(1)
Distinguishing the Jones and A cases
20(1)
Policy considerations
21(1)
The likely future ramifications of the A case
22(2)
Other Aspects of Public Administration
24(869)
Land registry
24(4)
Provision of information concerning land ownership
28(2)
Information provided by courts
30(1)
Immigration advice
31(1)
Taxation advice
32(1)
Ministerial decisions
33(860)
Index 893


Cherie Booth QC is a leading barrister (specialising in public law, employment law, education law and human rights), Recorder, and Bencher of Lincoln's Inn.





Daniel Squires is a barrister at Matrix Chambers, specialising in public and employment law.