#19872 - Breach Of Statutory Duty - Tort Law

Breach of Statutory Duty

The Basics

A – Breach of duty owed to no one in particular

The general rule is if the duty is on D for the benefit of the community as a whole, it is not civilly actionable (Lonrho v Shell Petroleum (No.2)). 2 exceptions:

1. D’s breach amounts to public nuisance

Here, anyone who’s suffered special damage as a result of D’s breach can sue for compensation.

2. D’s breach amounts to misfeasance in public office

But when do you know when a duty isn’t imposed for the benefit of a specific person? In X v Bedfordshire CC, HL said a statutory duty requiring the local authority to intervene to protect children at risk was not for the benefit of any particular individuals, but was designed to improve the social welfare of the community. not actionable in tort.

In Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium, the defendant breached their duty not to exclude anyone from the dog racing track because he wants to carry on bookmaking the track and make sure there’s space for bookmakers on the track. HL said this duty wasn’t for the benefit of individual bookmakers, but the general public as a whole who might want to place bets. not actionable in tort.

B – Breach of a duty owed to a third party

This is where someone owes a statutory duty aimed at protecting someone other than the claimant. The general rule is the claimant can’t bring an action.

In Wingrove v Prestige & Co, D had a statutory duty to ensure scaffolding was ‘suitable and safe’. D breached this and a council employee was blinded in both eyes. Court said this duty was for the benefit of D’s employees, not the claimant not actionable.

C – Breach of a duty owed to the claimant

These are actionable IF:

1. D’s breach resulted in C suffering the kind of loss the statutory duty was imposed on D to avoid

Gorris v Scott established the rule which says you can’t sue for breach of duty for the wrong kind of loss applies to statutory duties also.

2. Parliament intended a breach of the statutory duty to be civilly actionable

Summarised by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in X v Bedfordshire CC

What if we don’t know if Parliament intended the statutory duty to be actionable civilly if it’s breached?

Hard cases of Parliamentary intent

Courts nowadays analyse the history of the legislation to determine whether parliament intended a statutory breach to be civilly actionable – Morrison Sports v Scottish Power.

What if there’s a problem question with a made-up statutory duty? We assume that if D has breached a statutory duty and the claimant has suffered the kind of loss the duty existed to protect against, then Parliament intended it to be actionable. However, if we find indicators Parliament didn’t intend to make it civilly actionable, we conclude the opposite. What are these indicators?:

1. Alternate means of enforcement

Lord Rodger in Morrison Sports said if the statute provides other means of enforcing a duty, it normally indicates it shouldn’t be enforced by private law. In that case, the fact the secretary of state had powers to enforce the statutory duty indicated it shouldn’t be privately actionable.

In Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board, HL said breach wasn’t civilly actionable because Parliament had specified what was to happen where that duty breached – an affected employee should go to a tribunal.

The existence of a criminal penalty for breach of duty might indicate parliament didn’t intend for it to be civilly actionable, although this isn’t conclusive (Groves v Wimborne).

2. Floodgates

Would allowing civil actionability create an oppressive burden? In Atkinson v The Newcastle and Gateshead Waterworks Company, CA said parliament couldn’t have intended a breach be civilly actionable because it would create an unrealistic burden on the company in question.

3. Public interest

Contrary to public interest for breach to be actionable not actionable. Example: X v Bedfordshire CC.

4. Useful purpose

In McCall v Abelesz, there was no useful purpose in enforcing a breach of statutory duty not to harass tenants because C had a range of remedies available to him.

In Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a detained suspect was denied access to a solicitor. However, C...