4.3. Elements of Convergence

On a cursory view, there are great differences between the two systems on this question. The corporate and impersonal character of faute de service contrasts starkly with vicarious liability in English law. Another important difference derives from the fact that English public servants are personally accountable for their actions in civil law, whereas their French counterparts escape censure before the civil courts if only a service-connected fault has occurred.¹⁶⁶ As Lord Denning proclaimed: ‘English Law does not allow a public officer to shelter behind a droit adminis-tratif.’¹⁶⁷

Such an initial view is deceptive. On closer analysis, the two systems are not as different as initially thought.¹⁶⁸ First, the characterization of French and English law as twin poles consisting of an impersonal faute de service on the one hand and vicarious liability on the other is somewhat misleading. In fact, a public authority must act through its servants, and faute de service is often premised upon direct individual action¹⁶⁹ rather than an amorphous service-related fault.¹⁷⁰ Moreover, a public servant guilty of an egregious fault can still be sued in the civil courts for a faute personnelle. State liability in England is by no means purely vicarious. Vicarious liability is in fact complemented by the direct liability of public authorities for the exercise of their statutory functions.¹⁷¹

Secondly, there are similarities in the position of individual public servants in England and France. Despite the fundamental English principle of personal liability of public servants, in practice the effects of this have been curtailed so as not to discourage people from taking up public (p.26) duties. Protection from personal liability is provided by statute for the members and officers of local authorities, health authorities, and NHS Trusts.¹⁷² Even where such immunity does not apply, public bodies generally indemnify their employees for personal liability for acts within the course of employment.¹⁷³ Another unfavourable rule has also been circumscribed. The ‘independent discretion’ rule meant there could be no vicarious liability for torts committed in the exercise of statutory or common law duties or powers vested specifically in the servant officer and not the employer public body.¹⁷⁴ Not only is it now very uncertain whether this rule still survives,¹⁷⁵ but public sector employers are in any case unlikely to rely upon it against their own employees.¹⁷⁶

In French law, we have seen that the doctrine of autonomy was abandoned and the notion of faute de service was stretched in order to reduce the number of cases in which victims of wrongdoing may only pursue public servants. Although it is in theory possible for a public body to bring a recursory action against the public servant who was responsible for the faute personnelle,¹⁷⁷ in practice recursory actions are rarely instituted against public servants.¹⁷⁸ Similarly, in England such recursory actions¹⁷⁹ are avoided by contractual stipulation in employment contracts¹⁸⁰ and by a ‘gentleman's agreement’ according to which (the employers') liability insurers will not take advantage of the right to indemnity unless there is evidence of collusion or wilful misconduct on the part of the employee.¹⁸¹ All these procedures ensure that public (p.27) servants in England and France are rarely found personally liable for acts in furtherance of their public duties.

In sum, there are many ways in which the outcomes in the two systems are similar. This convergence should not be too surprising: at the root of the concepts of faute de service and vicarious liability is the same policy of promoting the interest of the victim by allowing actions against those with deep pockets.¹⁸²

Notes:

(1) For an in-depth analysis see C. Harlow, Administrative Liability: A Comparative Study of French and English Law (Thesis, University of London, 1979) chap. 1.

(2) G. Soulier, ‘Réflexions Sur l'Evolution et l'Avenir du Droit de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique’, RDP [1969] 1039, 1043.

(3) e.g. G. Teissier, Répertoire Béquet sur la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (Paris, 1906) xxiii, 106 ; G. Dupuis, M.-J. Guédon, and P. Chrétien, Droit Administratif (6th edn, Paris, 1999) 514 .

(4) G. E. Robinson, Public Authorities and Legal Liability (London, 1925) 6 ; R. McMillan Bell, Crown Proceedings (London, 1948) 19 . Although there is disagreement about the meaning of the maxim: Wade and Forsyth, 799–800.

(5) L. Ehrlich, ‘Proceedings Against the Crown (1216–1377)’ in P. Vinogradoff (ed.), 6 Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History (Oxford, 1921) 40 ; W. Holdsworth, ‘The History of Remedies Against the Crown’ (1922) 38 LQR 141, 144 .

(6) King's Court judgment of 1234, as recorded in Bracton's Note Book, Case 1108 (London, 1887). See W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law (3rd edn, London, 1923) iii, 465 .

(7) H. Street, Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, 1953) 1 .

(8) M. F. Spungin, History of the Petition of Right Since 17th Century (Thesis, Oxford University, 1959) 3; W. Clode, Law and Practice of Petition Right (London, 1887) .

(9) e.g. Gervais de Clifton's Case of 1349, recorded in Year Book 22 Ed III. pl 12. See also case in Close Rolls 89, m 13 r, cited by Ehrlich, n. 5 above, 17. A Parliamentary proclamation stated that ‘anyone who is aggrieved by the actions of the King or his ministers or by others should put forward a petition and he shall have convenient and good remedy’ (1341 Rotuli Parliamentorum, Vol. ii, 127, no. 5).

(10) Covering both land and chattels. See W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law, Volume ix, 20, 41–2; H. Street, Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, 1953) 1–2 .

(11) ‘Public works’. This is recorded by M. Boulet-Sautel, ‘Une Responsabilité de L'Etat sous L'Ancien Régime’ in La Responsabilité à Trovers Les Ages (Paris, 1989) 89 . See also G. Lepointe, ‘L'Evolution de la Responsabilité Administrative dans la France du XIX siècle’ [1959] Revue Historique du Droit Francais et Etranger 214.

(12) Boulet-Sautel, n. 11 above, 113–14.

(13) Law of 28 Feb. 1800.

(14) E. Laferrière, Traité de la Juridiction Administrative (2nd edn, Paris, 1896), ii, 158 ff .

(15) Deguergue, 77–8; C. Bréchon-Moulènes, Les Régimes Législatifs de Responsabilité Publique (Paris, 1973) 22 ff .

(16) Indeed, an entire book has been devoted to this topic: F. Koechlin, La Responsabilité de l'Etat en dehors des Contrats de l'An VIII à 1873 (Paris, 1957) .

(17) CE 20 Mar. 1828, Combault d'Auteuil, Roche et Lebon IV.308.

(18) CE 8 Aug. 1844, Dupart, D.1845.3.3.

(19) e.g. when the police confiscated goods and documents from a foreigner: CE 12 May 1824, Pfafenhoffen, Roche et Lebon III.470.

(20) See P. Duez, La Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (2nd edn, Paris, 1938) 13–14 ; Chapus, para. 1399.

(21) Art. 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man of 26 Aug. 1789 stipulates that ‘[l]aw is the expression of the general will’.

(22) See generally Allison, 141.

(23) See L. Duguit, Traité de Droit Constitutionnel (3rd edn, Paris, 1930) iii, 270 . See further C. Harlow, Administrative Liability: A Comparative Study of French and English Law (Thesis, University of London, 1979) 12.

(24) Ironically, then, this moved towards a position where ‘the state, like the King in previous times, could do no wrong’: J. Moreau, Droit Public: Droit Administratif (3rd edn, Paris, 1995) ii, 579 .

(25) See generally E. de Enterria, Révolution Francaise et Administration Contemporaine (Paris, 1993) 25 ff ; A. Van Lang, Juge Judiciare et Droit Administratif (Paris, 1996) 286–331 ; B. Schwartz, French Administrative Law and the Common-Law World (New York, 1954) 6 ; Allison, 138–42.

(26) J. Brissaud, A History of French Public Law (New York, 1969) para. 403 ; A. Sheenan, The Parlement of Paris (London, 1968) . The Parlements had exercised both judicial and legislative powers.

(27) Due to the principe de la séparation des autorités administratives et judiciaires, enacted in legislative form in Art. 13 of the Law of 16–24 Aug. 1790.

(28) See generally Le Conseil d'Etat, Son Histoire à Travers les Documents d'Epoque: 1799–1974 (CNRS, Paris, 1974); F. Batailler, Le Conseil d'Etat, Juge Constitutionnel (Paris, 1966) .

(29) V. T. Sauvel, ‘La Justice Retenue de 1806 à 1872’ RDP [1970] 237.

(30) R. Drago, ‘La Loi du 24 Mai 1872’ EDCE [1972] 13.

(31) See text accompanying n. 16 above.

(32) M. F. Spungin, History of the Petition of Right Since 17th Century (Thesis, Oxford University, 1959) 68–97.

(33) Ibid. 66.

(34) Viscount Canterbury v Attorney-General (1842) 1 PH 306; Tobin v R (1864) 16 CB (NS) 310; Feather v R (1865) 6 B & S 257.

(35) G. Williams, Crown Proceedings (London, 1948) 16 .

(36) Tobin v R (1864) 16 CB (NS) 310; Feather v R (1865) 6 B & S 257.

(37) e.g. the Minister of Transport was liable for the torts of his subordinates in respect of land transport: Ministry of Transport Act 1919, s 26(1).

(38) Wade and Forsyth, 803–4.

(39) Adams v Naylor [1946] AC 54; Royster v Cavey [1947] KB 204.

(40) Solicitor-General, House of Commons, Official Report, Written Answers, 21 Nov. 1946, 171, para. 143.

(41) Clerk & Lindsell, para. 4–02. See comments of Neill LJ in Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732.

(42) Itchin Bridge Company v The Southampton Board of Health (1858) 8 E&B 811; Mersey Docks & Harbour Board v Gibbs (1866) LR 1 HL 93. This rule applied as long as the public servants were not acting as Crown Agents. For delimitation problems see Arrowsmith, 16 ff; P. Hogg, Liability of the Crown (2nd edn, Toronto, 1989) chap. 11 ; D. Lévy, La Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique et de ses Agents en Angleterre (Paris, 1956) 60 ff .

(43) W. Harrison Moore, ‘Liability for Acts of Public Servants’ (1907) 23 LQR 12.

(44) J. J. Somerville, The Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 (London, 1934) 14 .

(45) 6 months or, exceptionally, one year.

(46) J. Chartres, The Public Authorities Protection Act 1893 (London, 1912) 2 . In fact, similar legislation had already existed in some areas, and was thus extended and generalized to all public authorities by this Act: see Edwards v Metropolitan Water Board [1922] 1 KB 291.

(47) Law Reform Act 1954.

(48) Geddis v Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878) 3 App Cas 430, 455.

(49) Interpreted as laying down the rule that statutory authority provides no defence to a free-standing cause of action for the careless exercise of statutory functions, unless damage was an inevitable consequence of the proper exercise of those functions: X(Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633, 732.

(50) [1941] AC 74.

(51) P. Craig, ‘Negligence in the Exercise of a Statutory Power’ (1978) 94 LQR 428 ; Craig, 860.

(52) See the discussion of Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004, at p. 67 below.

(53) Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 2.

(54) Ibid., s 17.

(55) Ibid., s 38(2).

(56) Ibid., s 2(2). This issue is sometimes explicitly covered in statute: e.g. Consumer Protection Act 1987, s 9. See Arrowsmith, 157–8.

(57) Police Act 1964, s 48(1). At common law, chief constables were not vicariously liable for torts committed by officers: Fisher v Oldham Corporation [1930] 2 KB 364.

(58) See n. 42 above.

(59) See further Harlow, 26–8.

(60) For the confusion regarding direct liability see Arrowsmith, 158–9.

(61) TC 8 Feb. 1873, Blanco, D.1873.3.17. A translation of this case may be found in the Appendix.

(62) The Tribunal des Conflits refers to the Law of 16–24 Aug. 1790 which lays down the principe de la séparation des autorités administratives et judiciaires.

(63) This principle of the administrative courts' jurisdiction is by no means absolute: see p. 5 above.

(64) G. Braibant, ‘Le Rôle du Conseil d'Etat dans l'Elaboration du Droit’ in Mélanges René Chapus: Droit Administratif (Paris, 1992) 91 ; R. Marcq, La Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (Paris, 1911) 317 .

(65) The need to adopt autonomous rules of administrative liability was presaged in the case of Baudry: CE 1 June 1861, Baudry, D.1861.3.42.

(66) TC 7 Mar. 1874, D.1874.3.54.

(67) TC 29 Feb. 1908, Feutry, D. 1908.3.49 (département); TC 11 Apr. 1908, de Fonscolombe, Sirey 1909.3.49 (communes).

(68) Often concerning the police administrative see E. Picard, La Notion de Police Administrative (Paris, 1984) .

(69) See H. Street, Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, 1953) 17 .

(70) See R. Marcq, La Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (Paris, 1911) 317 ; P. Jacquelin, Les Principes Dominants du Contentieux Administrative (Paris, 1899) 272 ff .

(71) Ibid., 272–5 ; G. Teissier, Répertoire Béquet sur La Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique, (Paris, 1906) xxiii, 157 ff .

(72) E. Laferrière, Traité de la Juridiction Administrative (2nd edn, Paris, 1896) ii, 187 .

(73) CE 10 Feb. 1905, Tomaso Grecco, D.1906.3.81.

(74) See generally M. Rougevin–Baville, ‘Irresponsabilité de la Puissance Publique’ in F. Gazier and R. Drago (eds.), Dalloz Encyclopédie de Droit Public: Répertoire de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (Paris, 1988) ; Virally, ‘L'Introuvable Acte de Gouvernement’, RDP. 1952 317; R. Chapus, ‘L'Acte de Gouvernement, Monstre ou Victime?’, D. 1958 Chronique 5.

(75) e.g. the conduct of international negotiations: CE 29 Oct. 1954, Taurin [1954] Rec 566.

(76) So a Presidential decree dissolving Parliament is non-justiciable: CE 20 Feb. 1989, Allain [1989] Rec 60.

(77) CE 2 Mar. 1966, Dame Cramencel [1966] Rec 157.

(78) Damages may be granted when loss has been caused by the conclusion of an international treaty: see CE 30 Mar. 1966, Compagnie Générale d'Energie Radio-électrique [1966] Rec 257. However, such actions are rarely successful due to the strict conditions of this case law: see Chap. 5, sect. 2.2.2.

(79) The limited statutory immunity of the postal services is now subject to liability for faute lourde: CE 22 Jan. 1986, Grellier [1986] Rec 643. In the planning sphere, the statutory immunity for loss caused by servitudes (deriving from Art. L 160–5 of the Code de l'Urbanisme) is now subject to exceptions: CE 3 July 1998, Bitouzet, RFDA 1998.1243.

(80) Note also that the rule that the Crown is immune from the burden of statutes (Lord Advocate v Dumbarton DC [1990] 2 AC 580) is avoided by express stipulation in statutes e.g. Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, s 6. See Arrowsmith, 160 ff.

(81) For conditions of this defence see A-G v Nissan [1970] AC 179. See Clerk & Lindsell, para. 4–16.

(82) Chap. 4, sect. 2.1.1.

(83) Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. S 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which denied recovery in tort for personal injury to a member of the armed forces, was suspended by s 1 of the Crown Proceedings (Armed Forces) Act 1987. However, this latter provision did not have retrospective effect, and consequently did not apply to acts or omissions occurring before its enactment, a feature which has led to the challenge of s 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 in a claim for damages in respect of injury caused by exposure to asbestos during employment of the claimant by the Ministry of Defence between 1955 and 1968. At first instance, Keith J held that s 10 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 was incompatible with Art. 6(1) of the ECHR, and a declaration of incompatibility was duly made (Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWHC 13), but this decision has recently been overturned by the Court of Appeal: Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2002] EWCA Civ. 773.

(84) Mulcahy v Ministry of Defence [1996] QB 732. Nonetheless, military authorities would seem to be vicariously liable for harm caused by a member of the armed forces during routine operations. See further D. Nolan, ‘Governmental Liability’ in A. Grubb (ed.), The Law of Tort (London, 2001) .

(85) Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 9.

(86) See n. 79 above.

(87) Post Office Act 1969, s 29.

(88) Ibid., s 30(2).

(89) See generally A. Olowofoyeku, Suing Judges (Oxford, 1993) ; Wade and Forsyth, 771–4.

(90) Crown Proceedings Act, s 2(5): ‘[n]o proceedings shall lie against the Crown…in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by any person while discharging or purporting to discharge any responsibility of a judicial nature vested in him.’

(91) There is also a statutory scheme providing for the payment of compensation to those who have suffered a miscarriage of justice: Criminal Justice Act 1988, s 133.

(92) See Chap. 3, sect. 3.3.1. For further discussion see H. Toner, ‘Thinking the Unthinkable? State Liability for Judicial Acts after Factortame (III)’ (1997) 17 YEL 165 .

(93) See discussion in Chap. 3, sect. 3.3.2.

(94) HRA, s 9(3). Although there is no need to show bad faith where Art. 5(5) of the ECHR is concerned (claims involving personal liberty or security of the person). See A. Olowofoyeku, ‘State Liability for the Exercise of Judicial Power’ [1998] PL 444, 459–60.

(95) See Chapus, paras. 1477–1483. The French administrative judiciary may be liable for acts of a judicial nature on the basis of a faute lourde as long as the claimant has not impugned the substantive content of a definitive decision: CE 29 Dec. 1978, Darmont [1978] Rec 542. However, the Conseil d'Etat has recently set aside this pre–condition of faute lourde regarding the violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time underpinned by Art. 6(1) of the ECHR: CE 28 June 2002, Magiera, Req 239575. A translation of this case may be found in the Appendix. For further discussion of liability for judicial acts see W. Van Gerven, J. Lever, and P. Larouche, Tort Law (Oxford, 2000) 383 .

(96) See further P. Cane, Tort Law and Economic Interests (2nd edn, Oxford, 1996) 247 ff .

(97) For the exercise of prerogative powers see Clerk & Lindsell, para. 4–12.

(98) Manchester Corporation v Farnworth [1930] AC 171. See further Chap. 4, sect. 2.2.2 and Chap. 5, sect. 3.1.

(99) DoT v North West Water Authority [1984] AC 336. See further Chap. 5, sect. 3.2.

(100) X(Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 732.

(101) T. Weir, ‘The Staggering March of Negligence’ in P. Cane and J. Stapleton (eds.), The Law of Obligations: Essays in Celebration of John Fleming (Oxford, 1998) .

(102) See D. Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford, 1999) chap. 10 ; B. Rudden, ‘Torticles’ (1991–1992) 6/7 Tulane Civil Law Forum 105 .

(103) The basic elements of the tort of negligence are that the defendant has breached a duty of care owed to the claimant, and this has caused the claimant damage. See Markesinis and Deakin, 69 ff.

(104) D. Ibbetson, A Historical Introduction to the Law of Obligations (Oxford, 1999) 192–3 .

(105) Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, 579–80 (Lord Atkin).

(106) Dorset Yacht v Rome Office [1970] AC 1004, 1026–27 (Lord Reid).

(107) Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728.

(108) Although also expressed in terms of a relationship of ‘proximity or neighbourhood’ by Lord Wilberforce in Anns: ibid., 751.

(109) Ibid., 751–2 (Lord Wilberforce).

(110) Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175, 194; Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398; Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923.

(111) See Yuen Kun Yeu [1988] AC 175, 191; Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 617–18; Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398.

(112) Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605, 617–18.

(113) Chap. 4, sect. 2.1.

(114) B. Rudden, ‘Torticles’ (1991–1992) 6/7 Tulane Civil Law Forum 105 ; J. Bell, S. Boyron, and S. Whittaker, Principles of French Law (Oxford, 1998) 354 .

(115) For civil law see ibid., 354 ff ; C. von Bar, The Common European Law of Torts (Oxford, 1998) i .

(116) See p. 5 above.

(117) Allison, 164 ff.

(118) C. Harlow and R. Rawlings, Law and Administration (2nd edn, London, 1997) 621 .

(119) See H. Woolf, J. Jowell, and A. Le Sueur, de Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Principles of Judicial Review (5th edn, London, 1998) para. 16–005 . This was effected under RSC 053, r 9(5) (now governed by Civil Procedure Rules, Pt. 54).

(120) Stipulated in Art. 75 of the 1799 Constitution. See Deguergue, 246–52.

(121) J. Moreau, Droit Public: Droit Administratif (3rd edn, Paris, 1995) ii, 582 ; J.-C. Maestre, La Responsabilité Pécuniaire des Agent Publics en Droit Français (Paris, 1962) 30 .

(122) Decree 19 Sept. 1870, D.1870 Législation 91.

(123) Although this interpretation was given well after the event: see CG Blum's conclusions in CE 26 July 1918, Lemonnier [1918] Rec 762.

(124) TC 30 July 1873, Pelletier, D. 1874.3.5.

(125) See Deguergue, 257–60 and 517–23.

(126) See generally J.-C. Maestre, La Responsabilité Pécuniaire des Agent Publics en Droit Français (Paris, 1962) ; R. Douc, Les Frontières de la Faute Personnelle et de la Faute de Service en Droit Administratif Français (Paris, 1962) ; C. Gour, ‘Faute de Service’ in F. Gazier and R. Drago (eds.), Dalloz Encyclopédie de Droit Public: Répertoire de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique.

(127) For discussion of the doctrinal attempts to synthesize the case law see Deguergue, 633 ff; H. Street, Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (Cambridge, 1953) 58 ff . See the definition of faute personnelle given in a Circular of the Ministry of Interior of 22 Aug. 1984 and reproduced in J.-B. Auby, ‘Responsabilité en Matière d'Urbanisme’ in F. Gazier and R. Drago (eds.), Dalloz Encyclopédic de Droit Public: Repertoire de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique, para. 188.

(128) TC 5 May 1877, Laumonnier-Carriol [1877] Rec 437.

(129) See CG Labetoulle's conclusions in TC 13 Feb. 1984, Bousmaha, Les Petites Affiches, 26 Nov. 1984, 5; J. Moreau, ‘Responsabilité Personnelle des Agents et Responsabilité de 1'Administration’ Fascicule 806 (1993) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif .

(130) A. De Laubadère, J.-C. Venezia, and Y. Gaudemet, Traité de Droit Administratif (15th edn, Paris, 1999) para. 1239 ; G. Dupuis, M.-J. Guédon, and P. Chrétien, Droit Administratif (6th edn, Paris, 1999) 530 . See CG Bernard's conclusions in CE 26 Oct. 1973, Sadoudi, RDP 1974.936.

(131) CE 18 Jan. 1957, Lacroix [1957] Rec 45; CE 25 Jan. 1980, Laurent [1980] Rec 51.

(132) CE 12 Mar. 1975, Pothier [1975] Rec 190; CE 23 June 1954, Litzer [1954] Rec 376.

(133) Moreau, n. 129 above, para. 50.

(134) TC 21 Dec. 1987, Kessler [1987] Rec 456. The courts will often find a concurrent faute de service in police cases in order to protect the victim e.g. CE 10 Dec. 1986, Robert [1986] Rec 701.

(135) A. De Laubadère, J.-C. Venezia, and Y. Gaudemet, Traité de Droit Administratif (15th edn, Paris, 1999) para. 1239 ; J. Moreau, La Responsabilité Administrative (2nd edn, Paris, 1995) 56 ; Paillet, para. 111. See the recent decision concerning state liability and the personal liability of the Vichy official, Maurice Papon: CE 12 Apr. 2002, Papon, Req 238689.

(136) CE 4 July 1990, Le Sou Medical, D.1991 Sommaires-Commentés 291.

(137) TC 9 Oct. 1974, Lusignan [1974] Rec 477.

(138) See Chap. 4, sect. 3.1.

(139) J. Rivero and J. Waline, Droit Administratif (17th edn, Paris, 1998) para. 298 ; M. Hauriou, La Jurisprudence Administrative 1892 à 1928, (Paris, 1929) i, 630 ; B. Schwartz, French Administrative Law and the Common-Law World (New York, 1954) 283 .

(140) CE 3 Feb. 1911, Anguet [1911] Rec 146.

(141) CE 26 July 1918, Lemonnier [1918] Rec 762.

(142) See also CE 15 Mar. 1918, Baudelet [1918] Rec 259.

(143) ‘Not entirely disconnected with the public servic.’

(144) CE 18 Nov. 1949, Mimeur [1949] Rec 492. Traffic accidents would now be decided by the ordinary courts under the Law of 31 Dec. 1957.

(145) CE 28 July 1951, SA Papeteries de Malaucène [1951] Rec 470; CE 21 Feb. 1955, Ville de Paris, RDP 1955.1039. Compare CE 5 Nov. 1976, La Prévoyance [1976] Rec 476.

(146) CE 26 Oct. 1973, Sadoudi [1973] Rec 603.

(147) See also CE 23 Dec. 1987, Bachelier [1987] Rec 431.

(148) CE 18 Nov. 1988, Raszewski [1988] Rec 416.

(149) CG Bernard describes it as ‘pure fiction’ (see his conclusions in CE 26 Oct. 1973, Sadoudi, RDP 1974.936, 941). J. De Soto opined that the courts had gone ‘too far’, and could eventually ‘seriously overburden the public finances with debts’ (RDP 1955.1039).

(150) CE 12 Mar. 1975, Pothier [1975] Rec 190; CAA Lyon 10 Nov. 1992, Lussan, Req 91LY00616. This is a broad test covering all acts taking place during the hours of duty or where ‘the means and instruments of the act are placed at the disposal of the party at fault by the service’. For further discussion see Chapus, para. 1532.

(151) As famously expounded by A. Dicey, An Introduction to the Law of the Constitution (10th edn, London, 1959) 193 ff .

(152) For a modern example see Burgoine v Waltham Forest LBC (1996) 95 LGR 520.

(153) Smith v Martin and Hull Corporation [1911] 2 KB 775) Gold v Essex County Council [1942] 2 KB 293. See Winfield and Jolowicz, chap. 20; P. Atiyah, Vicarious Liability in the Law of Torts (London, 1967) . Note the debate whether the breach of a statutory duty imposed directly and solely upon an employee can also render the employer liable for his employee's breach of statutory duty: Clerk & Lindsell, para. 5–45.

(154) See n. 36 above.

(155) See text accompanying n. 53 above.

(156) Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 38(2). But the Crown may be liable only for officers appointed directly or indirectly by the Crown and paid wholly from money paid by Parliament or out of funds certified by the Treasury as equivalent: s 2(6).

(157) See generally Markesinis and Deakin, 543 ff; Winfield and Jolowicz, paras. 20.9–20.17.

(158) From R.A. Buckley, Salmond and Heuston on the Law of Torts (21st edn, London, 1996) 443 .

(159) Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215 (employers of the warden of a school boarding house, who sexually abused boys in his care, could be vicariously liable for the torts of their employee).

(160) See J. Bell, ‘The Law of England and Wales’ in J. Bell and A. Bradley (eds.), Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (London, 1991) 20 .

(161) England: Winfield and Jolowicz, para. 20.14; Racz v Home Office [1994] 2 AC 45 (public body can be vicariously liable for a prison officer who has committed misfeasance in public office, as long as the unauthorized acts are not so unconnected with the officer's authorized duties as to be quite independent of and outside those duties); see also Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2002] 1 AC 215. France: see nn. 146–8 above.

(162) Warren v Henlys [1948] 2 All ER 935; Keppel Bus Co Ltd v Sa'ad bin Ahmad [1974] 2 All ER 700.

(163) See Markesinis and Deakin, 549 ff.

(164) Smith v Stages [1989] AC 928, 955–6.

(165) See e.g. CE 18 Nov. 1949, Mimeur [1949] Rec 492 and Angus v Glasgow Corporation 1977 SLT 206 (although the latter Scottish case may have been overly harsh on the employer).

(166) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’, Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif, para. 19.

(167) Ministry of Housing v Sharp [1970] 2 QB 223, 266.

(168) See C. Harlow, ‘State Liability: Problem Without Solution’ (1996) 6 NJCL 67, 71 .

(169) e.g. a policeman's negligence: CE 10 Dec. 1986, Robert [1986] Rec 701.

(170) See general discussion in Chap. 4, sect. 3.1.

(171) See Gold v Essex CC [1942] 2 KB 293. In some areas of administrative activity, such as education and social welfare, the courts traditionally took a restrictive approach to direct duties of local authorities (X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633, 749–51 and 761–2) but there are signs that the attitude is changing: see Lord Slynn's comments on direct duties in the education sphere in Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 AC 619, 658 and 662. See further discussion in Chap. 4, sect. 2.1.2.3. Also see the expansion of non-delegable duties: Markesinis and Deakin, 555 ff; E. McKendrick, ‘Vicarious Liability and Independent Contractors—a Re-examination’ (1990) 53 MLR 770 .

(172) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, s 39; National Health Service Act 1977, s 125. These provisions replicate s 265 of the Public Health Act 1875, which confers an immunity in respect of bona fide acts. No protection is granted for mala fides or ultra vires acts performed on behalf of the authority: see S. H. Bailey, ‘Personal Liability in Local Government Law’ [1999] PL 461.

(173) Often through express stipulation in the employment contract: see Burgoine v Waltham Forest LBC (1996) 95 LGR 520. For a similar approach in Canada see P.-A. Cöté ‘The “French Model” and the Reform of the Law of Government Tort Liability in Canada’ (1996) 6 NJCL 55 .

(174) Stanbury v Exeter Corpn. [1905] 2 KB 838. See the comments of Lord Denning in Ministry of Housing v Sharp [1970] 2 QB 223, 268.

(175) Ibid., 278.

(176) Ibid., 269, 290; Burgoine v Waltham Forest LBC (1996) 95 LGR 520. See Harlow, n. 1 above, 70.

(177) The administrative courts will decide the share of the loss that each player—the state and the fonctionnaire—must support: CE 28 July 1951, Laruelle [1951] Rec 464. Apportionment is generally determined according to the gravity of the respective faults: CE 28 July 1951, Delville [1951] Rec 464.

(178) M. Guillaume-Hofnung, ‘La Faute Personnelle du Fonctionnaire’ [1987] Droits 97, 102; J. Rivero and J. Waline, Droit Administratif (17th edn, Paris, 1998) para. 303 .

(179) Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, s 1(1) (the effect of which enables an employer to recover some or all of the damages from his servant). See also Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co [1957] AC 555.

(180) See Burgoine v Waltham Forest LBC (1996) 95 LGR 520.

(181) See comments in Morris v Ford Motor Co Ltd [1973] QB 792, 798 ff.

(182) C. Harlow, Administrative Liability: A Comparative Study of French and English Law (Thesis, University of London, 1979) 81; Chapus, para. 1534. See also CG Bernard's conclusions in CE 26 Oct. 1973, Sadoudi, RDP 1974.936, 940.

Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved.

• Privacy policy and legal notice

• Credits

• Log out

Access brought to you by: Higher School of Economics