Torts

Breach of statutory duty-

Prima facie, where a statute provides only for a penalty for a breach of duty, it is assumed that the parliament only intended that the penalty should be the only sanction for beach. Where a statutory provision is concerned with safety, the court is prepared to assume that the breach of the statutory provision gives rise to a private cause of action, even though there is no indication in the words of the statute that is what Parliament intended. Plaintiff must be of a class of persons that the statute was intended to protect, and suffered the type of harm at which the statute was directed. Need only prove that the defendant has breached the duty imposed by statute.

The civil liability act stipulates that the authority’s act or omission does not amount to a breach of statutory duty unless it was in the circumstances so unreasonable that no authority having the same functions could consider the act or omission to be a reasonable exercise of its function.

Statutory authorities are usually conferred a wide discretion about how to perform their statutory functions and must perform their function within limited resources. Heyman’s- a statutory authority is under no common law duty to exercise its statutory power , unless there is specific reliance, when the authority acts in such a way as to lead the plaintiff to believe that it will exercise its powers for their protection. Also general reliance- a general dependence on an authority’s performance of its function with due care.

Policy v operational distinction

Cases where no breach of statutory duty:

Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd (1949) AC 398 – the Bettings and Lotteries Act 1934 (UK) provided that the occupier should not exclude anyone from the track only because he wanted to bookmake, and should take all steps as necessary to ensure there is available space for bookmakers. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for not making a...