4.2. Comparative Lessons for the Application of Policy Concerns

Another interesting parallel to investigate is the impact of policy concerns. We have already noted that a number of policy interests have been invoked by the English courts to deny a duty of care. The cogency of these policy concerns will be evaluated in turn.⁵⁵⁸

The English courts have held that the difficult and sensitive nature of public bodies' activities can militate against judicial scrutiny in negligence actions. In the sphere of social welfare, Lord Browne-Wilkinson in X (Minors) emphasized this in the context of local authorities dealing with children at risk of abuse.⁵⁵⁹ No one would deny the need to take account of the sensitivity of these tasks, and the desirability of allowing those who undertake them a margin of discretion. It is not self-evident, however, that these concerns should be used to exclude liability entirely. Many professionals make difficult and delicate decisions, and do so without the (p.130) need of such draconian protection. We have seen in French administrative law that these concerns can adequately be taken into account at the breach level: previously in terms of gross fault, but now more commonly within the ordinary standard of simple fault. French judges take account of the technical complexity or particular urgency of administrative activities when deciding whether there has been a faute simple.⁵⁶⁰ In English cases, these concerns can similarly be accommodated within the standard of breach, which can be moulded to afford a generous margin of manœuvre for public servants. We have seen that there are indications that the courts are starting to move in this direction. In the decisions in both Barrett and Phelps, it was recognized that the difficulties of intervention could be taken into account at the breach level.⁵⁶¹

Another concern to play upon the minds of the English judiciary is that if a duty were imposed, front-line public service provision would be impaired by authorities engaging in defensive practices to avoid liability. Although this concern has featured in many judgments,⁵⁶² it has by no means been unanimously accepted.⁵⁶³ Doubt was cast upon this policy factor in the judgments in Barrett. Lord Hutton and Lord Slynn supported Evans LJ's contention in the Court of Appeal that:

If the conduct in question is of a kind which can be measured against the standards of the reasonable man, placed as the defendant was, then I do not see why the law in the public interest should not require those standards to be observed.⁵⁶⁴

In Phelps, their Lordships were even more sceptical of this policy consideration. In particular, Lord Clyde felt that, rather than encourage a ‘peculiarly’ defensive attitude, a duty of care would probably increase standards.⁵⁶⁵ It is submitted that the doubts regarding this policy concern are justified.⁵⁶⁶ There is little empirical evidence supporting the ‘defensive practices’ phenomenon,⁵⁶⁷ which probably explains its uneven application (p.131) in similar factual circumstances: it was accepted as an argument against a duty of care of the coastguard rescue service,⁵⁶⁸ but rejected in relation to the rescue activities of the fire brigade.⁵⁶⁹ Experience in other jurisdictions suggests that there is considerable doubt about its veracity. In New Zealand, a similar policy argument was rejected in the context of a social welfare claim.⁵⁷⁰ We have also seen that French commentators have not been entirely supportive of the defensive practice argument.⁵⁷¹ Waline has forcefully argued that surgeons and firemen are unlikely to be influenced in their professional activities by such considerations.⁵⁷² On the other hand, however, Chapus has acknowledged that a blanket standard of faute simple might have some inhibiting effect on administrative action. Significantly, this does not lead Chapus to conclude in favour of denying liability,⁵⁷³ but rather in favour of judicial restraint at the breach level by means of gross fault. Chapus would no doubt approve of the new English law approach of taking account of these concerns by modulating the intensity of reasonableness as articulated in the standard of care.

A further reason which has surfaced for rejecting duties of care is the existence of alternative remedies, such as public law remedies, and recourse to the ombudsmen schemes.⁵⁷⁴ In X (Minors)⁵⁷⁵ and other subsequent cases, the courts have indeed cited these alternative redress procedures as one of the reasons for holding that it is not fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care.⁵⁷⁶ In Barrett, the House of Lords took (p.132) a rather different view. Lord Slynn doubted the effectiveness of these remedies compared with negligence actions.⁵⁷⁷ Lord Hutton held that the existence of other avenues of complaint should not exclude a duty of care.⁵⁷⁸ It is submitted that this view is the preferable one. Although it may be desirable for expensive and time-consuming litigation to be avoided by resort to other dispute mechanisms, it is not appropriate for these alternative remedies entirely to deny actionability in negligence. Public law remedies and statutory complaints procedures enable the claimant to challenge administrative practice and ensure that it is changed for the future. They thus serve a different purpose from civil liability, which is to place the victim in the position he or she would have been in absent the wrong.⁵⁷⁹ Civil liability provides monetary redress for the past and future effects of the wrong, not merely a prospective remedy.⁵⁸⁰

A view of comparative law on this point is instructive. The French courts have never viewed the existence of an alternative remedy such as recourse to the Ombudsman (Médiateur)⁵⁸¹ as ousting the ordinary rules of liability. On the other hand, German law would seem on a preliminary view to reflect the restrictive stance, as state liability is excluded where an individual can obtain redress from another source⁵⁸² (and the act was caused by nothing more severe than negligence⁵⁸³). But this rule has attracted strong criticism, and its effect has been eroded by various exceptions, such as road traffic accidents. It now excludes only a small fraction of damages claims.⁵⁸⁴

A final consideration that looms large in the English judicial consciousness is that of the financial constraints under which public authorities are operating, and the effect that further financial liabilities through damages liability would have upon this. The influence of this consideration upon the imposition of liability can be detected in certain cases.⁵⁸⁵ Lord Browne-Wilkinson has articulated this concern extrajudicially:

(p.133) [I]t is not really in the interests of society as a whole if you spend your time concentrating on rights of individuals to damages—because that is what we are talking about, financial compensation—against public authorities who are charged with looking after society as a whole and doing its best to perform a social welfare function; the creation of ever more duties giving rise to financial compensation is actually counterproductive in a society.⁵⁸⁶

This general concern appears in a number of different forms. It is present in the fear of the courts that by recognizing new duties of care, a flood of unfounded claims would thereby be unleashed.⁵⁸⁷ There is also the belief that we are witnessing a dangerous increase in the ‘compensation culture’ against which strong bulwarks must be constructed for vulnerable public bodies.⁵⁸⁸ This is a debate which concerns complex questions striking at the heart of the role of the state, upon which members of the English judiciary hold very different views,⁵⁸⁹ and the debate is by no means restricted to the legal world.⁵⁹⁰ Nor is it a solely common law phenomenon. In the context of French administrative law, Bréchon-Moulènes has observed that ‘[o]ne should not therefore underestimate the impact of financial concerns on the policy underlying the case law’.⁵⁹¹ In a recent French case addressing the question whether death should extinguish a claim for non-pecuniary loss,⁵⁹² CG Chauvaux noted that this issue was ‘not without practical importance, particularly given the litigation concerning contamination by blood transfusion. The sums involved can be high, and even if actions brought by heirs are limited by the 4 year limitation period, the number of potential actions would seem by no means negligible’.⁵⁹³

Although this policy concern has been raised in French law, it has invariably received short shrift. This is clear from the conclusions of another administrative judge, CG Peano, who addressed this question in (p.134) a case concerning damage caused to a third party by a child placed in a foster family⁵⁹⁴ as follows:

[T]he enhanced protection of the victims of loss caused by minors who are subject to special care provision, will weigh heavier on those départements whose financial means are not infinitely extendable, but the financial argument has but a little role to play in defining the regime of public liability, particularly in view of the extension of insurance undertaken by local authorities in order to meet their evolving liabilities.⁵⁹⁵

Moreover, we have already seen that Vedel has argued that it is improper for a judge in a damages action to advert to the need for budget austerity: it is simply not permissible to take into account extraneous considerations, such as the financial consequences of decisions on the defendant.⁵⁹⁶

In an English context, an interesting and forceful response was made to similar concerns by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration:⁵⁹⁷

We agree that the priority in expenditure should be the improvement of services. Effective redress is itself a service improvement. It may be unfortunate that funds are spent in compensation. It cannot, however, be right to use such arguments against schemes which justly reimburse the complainant for financial loss. The answer is not to avoid compensation but to avoid the original failure of service.⁵⁹⁸

Interestingly, the English courts seem to be taking a more nuanced approach to this policy concern. In the Court of Appeal in Phelps, Stuart-Smith LJ was plainly worried by the potential ‘proliferation’ of education claims.⁵⁹⁹ But the Law Lords did not share this concern. Lord Nicholls in Phelps rejected the ‘spectre of a rash of “gold-digging” claims’.⁶⁰⁰ Lord Clyde said he did not believe a flood of claims would arise.⁶⁰¹ Moreover, (p.135) Lord Nicholls also rejected the fear that the courts would be overburdened with groundless or vexatious claims brought against public bodies in broad fashion, with a phrase which is surely going to be used by a plethora of claimants attempting to break new ground in tort liability: ‘[d]enial of the existence of a cause of action is seldom, if ever, the appropriate response to fear of its abuse’.⁶⁰² This is a significant statement, which challenges the predominance of the duty concept in shaping the limits of negligence.⁶⁰³

To conclude this section, it is submitted that the policy concerns which have cumulatively played such a restrictive role in governing the negligence liability of public authorities are problematic. It is noteworthy that empirical evidence is seldom adduced in respect of these policy concerns. This perhaps explains their somewhat capricious nature.⁶⁰⁴ In a rare example of a robust response to policy concerns pleaded by counsel, Buxton LJ held in Perrett v Collins:⁶⁰⁵

[t]here was no evidence to support any of these contentions…. In my respectful view, the Court should be very cautious before reaching or acting on any conclusions that are not argued before it in the way in which technical issues are usually approached, with the assistance of expert evidence.

The policy concerns have been subject to rigorous doctrinal and, occasionally, judicial criticism. Now most prominently the House of Lords in the recent cases of Barrett and Phelps has indicated that the courts are taking a more nuanced approach to these policy concerns.

Notes:

(1) For an analysis of the reasons underlying judicial restraint in this area see generally Craig, 860–4; B. Feldthusen, Economic Negligence (3rd edn, Toronto, 1994) 280–4 ; D. Cohen and J.C. Smith, ‘Entitlement and the Body Politic: Rethinking Negligence in Public Law’ (1986) 64 Can. Bar Rev. 1 ; D. Nolan, ‘Governmental Liability’ in A. Grubb (ed.), The Law of Tort (London, 2001) ; M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Sufficiently Serious?’ in M. Andenas (ed.), English Public Law and the Common Law of Europe (London, 1998), chap. 14 ; J.W.F. Allison, ‘The Procedural Reason for Judicial Restraint’ [1994] PL 452; P. Hogg, Liability of the Crown (2nd edn, Toronto, 1989) chap. 6 .

(2) For similar concerns in private law claims for breach of statutory duty see Danns v Department of Health [1996] PIQR 69. See also P. Cane, Tort Law and the Protection of Economic Interests (2nd edn, Oxford, 1996) 246 .

(3) P. Craig, ‘Negligence in the Exercise of a Statutory Power’ (1978) 94 LQR 428, 442–7 ; M. Aronson and H. Whitmore, Public Torts and Contracts (Sidney, 1982) 36–60 ; J. Sopinka, ‘The Liability of Public Authorities: Drawing the Line’ (1993) 1 Tort L Rev 123 .

(4) Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Anns’).

(5) Although traces may be found in Dorset Yacht v Home Office [1970] AC 1004. See P. Craig, ‘Negligence in the Exercise of a Statutory Power’ (1978) 94 LQR 428, 436–8.

(6) [1978] AC 728, 754.

(7) Ibid., 754.

(8) Ibid., 755.

(9) [1991] AC 398. See D. Brodie, ‘Public Authorities and the Duty of Care’ [1996] JR 127, 132.

(10) [1988] AC 473.

(11) Ibid., 501.

(12) Ibid.

(13) [1995] 2 AC 633.

(14) Ibid., 737.

(15) [2001] 2 AC 550, 572, 584–6.

(16) Ibid., 574. See also Lavis v Kent CC (1992) 90 LGR 416.

(17) S v Gloucestershire CC [2001] Fam. 313, 338. See also Lord Slynn's judgment in Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 AC 619, 653 (contra Lord Nicholls, who reiterated his long-held doubts about the operational-policy distinction: [2001] 2 AC 619, 665).

(18) [1996] AC 923. See J. Convery, ‘Public or Private? Duty of Care in a Statutory Framework: Stovin v Wise in the House of Lords’ (1997) 60 MLR 559 .

(19) [1996] AC 923, 951.

(20) S. H. Bailey and M. J. Bowman, ‘The Policy/Operational Dichotomy—A Cuckoo in the Nest’ [1986] CLJ 430; J.A. Smillie, ‘Liability of Public Authorities for Negligence’ (1985) 23 UWOL Rev. 213 ; D. Cohen and J.C. Smith, ‘Entitlement and the Body Politic: Rethinking Negligence in Public Law’ (1986) 64 Can. Bar Rev. 1 .

(21) M. J. Bowman and S. H. Bailey, ‘Negligence in the Realms of Public Law—A Positive Obligation to Rescue?’ [1984] PL 277.

(22) Barrett [2001] 2 AC 550, 572, 584, and 591. For an implicit application of such an approach see Thompson v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ. 331 (the policy of allowing prison inmates to keep razors with them unless there is a good reason why they should be with held was not negligent).

(23) [1996] AC 923, 952–3.

(24) Ibid., 953.

(25) See A. Mason, ‘Negligence and the Liability of Public Authorities’ (1998) 2 Edinburgh L Rev 3, 20 ; S. H. Bailey and M. J. Bowman, ‘Public Authority Negligence Revisited’ [2000] CLJ 85, 110–11.

(26) Specifically the reference to Lord Keith's judgment in Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 (see Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 952).

(27) Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 951. See also S. H. Bailey, Cross on Principles of Local Government Law (2nd edn, London, 1997) para. 8–27 .

(28) Craig, 860–4; Arrowsmith, 174.

(29) S v Gloucestershire CC [2001] Fam. 313, 338.

(30) See S. H. Bailey, B. L. Jones, and A. R. Mowbray, Cases and Materials on Administrative Law (3rd edn, London, 1997) 751 .

(31) [2001] 2 AC 550, 574.

(32) DHSS v Kinnear, The Times, 7 July 1984; Ross v Secretary of State for Scotland 1990 SLT 13; Lonrho Plc v Tebbit [1991] 4 All ER 973 (High Court, upheld in CA, [1992] 4 All ER 280); Danns v Department of Health [1996] PIQR 69; S v Gloucestershire CC [2001] Fam 313; Smith v Secretary of State for Health (QBD, 15 Feb. 2002). It is also invoked injudicial review cases: see, e.g., Marchiori v The Environment Agency [2002] EWCA Civ. 3 (matters of national defence policy). See generally H. Woolf, J. Jowell, and A. Le Sueur, de Smith, Woolf and Jowell's Principles of Judicial Review (5th edn., London, 1999) paras. 5–029-5–034 .

(33) S. H. Bailey, B. L. Jones, and A. R. Mowbray, Cases and Materials on Administrative Law (3rd edn, London, 1997) 751 . See the dissenting comments of Lord Nicholls in Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 938.

(34) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 732–5; W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302, 309.

(35) For discussion of the ‘incremental’ development of negligence based upon previously recognized duty situations, see p. 17 above.

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

(37) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 739; Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550; Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004. It has sometimes been asserted that where there is an assumption of responsibility by the defendant, the court need not embark upon the enquiry whether it is ‘fair, just, and reasonable’ to impose a duty of care (W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302, 308), but this has not always been borne out in the cases: see, e.g., Reeman v Department of Transport [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 648.

(38) It is true that there is a certain degree of overlap in the matters addressed by these questions. Policy concerns play a part in both. However, we will not enter into this discussion further here. For further discussion of the relationship between these two questions, see N. McBride and R. Bagshaw, Tort Law (Harlow, 2001) 130 ; Markesinis and Deakin, 80.

(39) These policy concerns will be examined in further detail and subject to critical analysis in sect. 4.2. below.

(40) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 749–50; Hussain v Lancaster CC [2000] QB 1, 25.

(41) Jones v Department of Employment [1989] QB 1, 22.

(42) Now the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority.

(43) Clough v Bussan [1990] 1 All ER 431; X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 751 and 762; Harris v Evans [1998] 3 All ER 522; W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302, 310; Dixon v Home Office (CA, 30 Nov. 1998).

(44) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 750.

(45) Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd [1988] AC 473, 502; Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175, 198; Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, 63; Hughes v NUM [1991] 4 All ER 278; Skinner v Secretary of State for Transport, The Times, 3 Jan. 1994; Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police [1995] QB 335, 349; W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302, 310.

(46) See P. Cane, Tort Law and Economic Interests (2nd edn, Oxford, 1996) 455–6 ; J. Bell, Policy Arguments in Judicial Decisions (Oxford, 1983) 70–2 ; Law Commission, Liability for Psychiatric Illness (Law Com No 249, London, 1998) para. 6.5.

(47) Gaisford v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Times, 19 July 1996; Ryeford Homes Ltd v Sevenoaks District Council [1989] 2 EGLR 281.

(48) Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [1999] 1 WLR 500, 522 (CA), now overruled by the House of Lords' decision: [2001] 2 AC 619.

(49) Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53.

(50) Clough v Bussan [1990] 1 All ER 431; Alexandrou v Oxford [1993] 4 All ER 328; Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344. See also Calveley v Chief Constable of the Merseyside Police [1989] 1 AC 1228.

(51) No duty is owed by the Home Office or its immigration officers to take reasonable care in decision-making regarding detained asylum seekers: W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302. See also Dixon v Home Office (CA, 30 Nov. 1998).

(52) Elguzouli-Daf v Commissioner of Police [1995] QB 335.

(53) This explained the finding of liability in Knightley v Johns [1982] 1 WLR 349 and Rigby v Chief Constable of Northamptonshire [1985] 1 WLR 1242.

(54) Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No 1) [1997] AC 464. See also Kirkham v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police [1990] 2 QB 283; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] 3 All ER 897.

(55) C. Hadjiemmanuil, Banking Regulation and the Bank of England (London, 1996), chap. 5 ; H. McLean, ‘Negligent Regulatory Authorities and the Duty of Care’ (1988) 8 OJLS 442 .

(56) Philcox v Civil Aviation Authority, The Times, 8 June 1995; Reeman v DoT [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 648; Harris v Evans [1998] 3 All ER 522. Liability arose exceptionally for negligent misstatement in Welton v North Cornwall DC [1997] 1 WLR 570. For a more liberal approach see also Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 255 (concerning personal injury) and Watson v British Boxing Board of Control Ltd [2001] QB 1134 (concerning personal injury; BBBC is a regulatory, but not a public, body), analysed by J. George, ‘Watson v British Boxing Board of Control: Negligent Rule-making in the Court of Appeal’ (2002) 65 MLR 106 .

(57) Yuen Run Yeu v Attorney General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175; Davis v Radcliffe [1990] 2 All ER 536.

(58) Murphy v Brentwood DC [1991] 1 AC 398; Tesco Stores v Wards Constructions Ltd (1995) 76 BLR 94.

(59) Strable v Dartford BC [1984] JPL 329; Lam v Brennan [1997] PIQR P488; Ryeford Homes Ltd v Sevenoaks District Council [1989] 2 EGLR 281. See also Haddow v Secretary of State for the Environment [1998] NPC 10, upheld in Haddow v Tendring District Council (CA, 9 July 1998).

(60) Lambert v West Devon BC [1997] JPL 735.

(61) [2001] 2 AC 550.

(62) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633. See J. Wright, ‘Local Authorities, the Duty of Care and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (1998) 18 OJLS 1 .

(63) Mainly concerning misstatements: T v Surrey CC [1994] 4 All ER 577.

(64) [2001] 2 AC 619.

(65) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633. On the other hand, it was held that individual teachers could owe a common law duty to exercise reasonable care in teaching, and local authorities could thus be vicariously liable in such situations: [1995] 2 AC 633, 766. But this was interpreted in a very restrictive manner by the Court of Appeal in Phelps: Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [1999] 1WLR 500, 522 (CA), now overruled by the House of Lords' decision: [2001] 2 AC 619.

(66) e.g. Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 255 (concerning personal injury). Prison authorities owe a duty of care in respect of the personal safety of detainees: Kirkham v Chief Constable of the Greater Manchester Police [1990] 2 QB 283; Reeves v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1999] 3 All ER 897.

(67) Markesinis and Deakin, 273.

(68) 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) 135 .

(69) So, the police may be liable for negligence when driving: they owe the same duty of care to road users as other drivers: Gaynor v Allen [1959] 2 QB 403; Marshall v Osmond [1983] QB 1034.

(70) See generally R. Bagshaw, ‘The Duties of Care of Emergency Service Providers’ [1999] LMCLQ 71.

(71) Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004, 1043–44 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Capital & Counties’). See R. Bagshaw, ‘Proximity's Siren Song’ (1998) 6 Tort L Rev 109 .

(72) No duty to answer an emergency call: Capital & Counties Plc [1997] QB 1004, 1026–30.

(73) Which seems to include substantially increasing the risk of loss by fire: Capital & Counties [1997] QB 1004, 1032.

(74) Ibid., 1038.

(75) Yuen Kun Yeu [1988] AC 175; Ryeford Homes Ltd v Sevenoaks District Council [1989] 2 EGLR 281; Tidman v Reading borough Council [1994] 3 PLR 72; Gaisford v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, The Times, 19 July 1996; Reeman v DoT [1997] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 648.

(76) Yuen Kun Yeu [1988] AC 175, 195. See J. Stapleton, ‘Duty of Care: Peripheral Parties and Alternative Opportunities for Deterrence’ (1995) 111 LQR 301, 314 .

(77) Ryeford Homes Ltd v Sevenoaks District Council [1989] 2 EGLR 281. See further Chap. 7, sect. 2.1.1.

(78) [2001] 2 AC 550. On this case see S. H. Bailey and M. J. Bowman, ‘Public Authority Negligence Revisited’ [2000] CLJ 85; P. Craig and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ [1999] PL 626; A. Mullis, ‘Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council: A Compensation-seeker's Charter?’ (2000) 2 CFLQ 185 ; W. van Gerven, J. Lever, and P. Larouche, Tort Law (Oxford, 2000) 363 .

(79) [2001] 2 AC 619. On this case see B. Markesinis, ‘Plaintiff's Tort Law or Defendant's Tort Law? Is the House of Lords Moving towards a Synthesis?’ (2001) 9 Torts LJ 168 ; D. Fairgrieve, ‘Pushing Back the Boundaries of Public Authority Liability: Tort Law Enters the Classroom’ [2002] PL 288; J. Greenwold, ‘Lawyers in the Classroom: The New Law of Educational Negligence’ (2000) 12 Education and the Law 245 ; M. Harris, ‘Education and Local Authorities’ (2001) 117 LQR 25 .

(80) [1998] QB 367.

(81) Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550.

(82) Respectively in Chap. 3, sect. 3.2.2, and Chap. 4, sect. 2.1.1.

(83) [2001] 2 AC 550, 556.

(84) Ibid., 569.

(85) Ibid., 568 and 588–90.

(86) Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [1998] ELR 38 (QBD).

(87) Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [1999] 1 WLR 500.

(88) Ibid., 522.

(89) [1999] ELR 356.

(90) [2000] ELR 36.

(91) [1999] ELR 1.

(92) [1999] ELR 356, 363.

(93) Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [1999] 1 WLR 500, 521 (CA).

(94) Lord Jauncey concurred with Lords Slynn, Clyde, and Nicholls; Lords Lloyd and Hutton concurred with Lords Slynn and Clyde; Lord Millett gave a very short judgment and agreed with Lords Clyde and Slynn.

(95) [2001] 2 AC 619, 653, 665–7, and 670–2.

(96) Ibid., 655, 667, and 672.

(97) Ibid., 653–4, 666, 673, and 674–5.

(98) Ibid., 654. So that a casual remark or an isolated act would not give rise to a duty of care.

(99) Ibid.

(100) [2001] 2 AC 619, 666.

(101) Ibid., 658.

(102) Ibid., 662.

(103) Ibid., 668 and 676.

(104) For a broader discussion of the impact of human rights law on tort law see J. Wright, Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) .

(105) [1999] 1 FLR 193.

(106) [2001] 2 FLR 612.

(107) [1989] AC 53.

(108) Osman v Ferguson [1993] 4 All ER 344.

(109) Lord Keith considered that a variety of public policy concerns militated against a duty of care. The imposition of liability may lead to the exercise of a function being carried on in a detrimentally defensive frame of mind. There might also be a significant diversion of police manpower and attention from their most important function, that of the suppression of crime. See Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53, 63.

(110) [1999] 1 FLR 193. Art. 6(1) ECHR: ‘in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.’

(111) Osman v UK [1999] 1 FLR 193, para. 151.

(112) See P. Craig and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ [1999] PL 626; C. Gearty, ‘Unravelling Osman’ (2001) 64 MLR 159 ; P. Giliker, ‘Osman and the Police Immunity in the English Law of Torts’ [2000] LS 372; L. Hoyano, ‘Policing Flawed Police Investigations: Unravelling the Blanket’ (1999) 62 MLR 912 ; M. Lunney, ‘A Tort Lawyer's View of Osman v United Kingdom’ (1999) 10 KCLJ 238 ; T. Weir, ‘Down Hill—All The Way?’ [1999] CLJ 4; E. McKendrick, ‘Negligence and Human Rights: Re-considering Osman’ in D. Friedmann and D. Barak-Erez, Human Rights in Private Law (Oxford, 2001) ; G. Monti, ‘Osman v. UK—Transforming English Negligence Law into French Administrative Law?’ (1999) 48 ICLQ 757 ; W. van Gerven, J. Lever, and P. Larouche, Tort Law (Oxford, 2000) 939 ; M. Vranken, ‘Duty of Care, Public Policy, and the European Convention on Human Rights: Osman v United Kingdom’ (1999) 7 Torts LJ 40 ; R. Weir, ‘Duties of Care: Human Rights and Competing Public Policy Arguments after Osman’ [2000] JPIL 208.

(113) P. Craig and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ [1999] PL 626, 630.

(114) See summary of C. Gearty, ‘Osman Unravels’ (2002) 65 MLR 87, 88 .

(115) M. Vranken, ‘Duty of Care, Public Policy, and the European Convention on Human Rights: Osman v United Kingdom’ (1999) 7 Torts LJ 40, 45 .

(116) C. Gearty, ‘Osman Unravels’ (2002) 65 MLR 87, 90 .

(117) T. Weir, ‘Down Hill—All The Way?’ [1999] CLJ 4, 7.

(118) ‘Human Rights and the House of Lords’ (1999) 62 MLR 159.

(119) Ibid., 163 and 166.

(120) Ibid., 164.

(121) S 2(1) of the HRA. As of the date the HRA entered into force, namely 2 Oct. 2000.

(122) [2001] 2 AC 550, 558.

(123) Ibid., 560.

(124) Other than in Lord Browne-Wilkinson's comments in Barrett (see n. 122 above) Osman rarely featured in judgments. See, however, Lord Clyde's brief comment in Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 AC 619, 672, and Lord Cooke in Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2001] 1 AC 435, 455.

(125) In Phelps, Lord Slynn felt the need to state that he had reached his decision without finding ‘it necessary in any of these cases to consider expressly’ the decision in Osman: [2001] 2 AC 619, 665. Note that it subsequently transpired that it was strategically adroit of the House of Lords not explicitly to rely upon Osman in these cases: p. 79 below.

(126) See Jarvis v Hampshire County Council [2000] ELR 36 (overruled by House of Lords in Phelps [2001] 2 AC 619); Palmer v Tees Health Authority [1999] Lloyd's Rep. Med. 351; L (A Child) v Reading Borough Council [2001] 1 WLR 1575.

(127) [2001] Fam. 313.

(128) Over and above the Osman case, reference was made to the European Commission of Human Rights' findings that the law as expounded in X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC breached Arts. 6(1) and 3 of the ECHR (Appl. No 29392/95, Z v UK, adopted on 10 Sept. 1999), which was subsequently departed from (in terms of Art. 6(1)) before the ECtHR. See p. 75 below.

(129) [2001] QB 36.

(130) [2001] QB 36, 50.

(131) Lord Woolf indicated in Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36, 50 that Osman had influenced the House of Lords to take a liberal approach to public authority liability cases. In Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands, Lord Cooke observed in respect of Osman that ‘[t]he United Kingdom courts can undoubtedly take it into account in developing the common law in grey areas’: [2001] 1 AC 435, 455.

(132) P. Craig and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ [1999] PL 626, 631.

(133) [2001] 2 AC 550, 560. Which it was assumed at that stage would in all probability apply the ruling in Osman to the facts of Barrett and reach the same legal conclusion.

(134) 1999 SC 420.

(135) See Appendix to Resolution DH (99) 720 ‘Concerning the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 28 October 1998’. For discussion of this usurpation of the judicial role in determining the effects in domestic law of another court see R. English, ‘Forensic Immunity Fost-Osman’ (2001) 64 MLR 300, 305 .

(136) [2001] 2 FLR 612. For commentary on this case see R. English, ‘The Decline and Fall of Osman’ (2001) 151 NLJ 973 ; C. Gearty, ‘Osman Unravels’ (2002) 65 MLR 87 ; T. Hickman, ‘Negligence and Article 6: The Great Escape?’ (2002) 61 CLJ 14 ; M. Künnecke, ‘The Impact of the Decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Z v. UK on the Development of the Liability of Public Bodies in the UK’ (2002) 8 EPL 25 ; J. Miles, ‘Human Rights and Child Protection’ [2001] CFLQ 431; N. Mole, ‘Local Authorities and the European Court’ [2001] Fam Law 667; J. Wright, Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) pp. xxiii-xxxvii; J. Wright, ‘The Retreat from Osman: Z v. United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights and Beyond’ in D. Fairgrieve, M. Andenas, and J. Bell (eds.), Tort Liability of Public Authorities in Comparative Perspective (London, 2002) .

(137) [1995] 2 AC 633. A claim on the basis of breach of statutory duty was also struck out.

(138) [2001] 2 FLR 612, paras. 95–101.

(139) Although this does not mean that it has satisfied all the commentators. Jane Wright has described Z as an ‘unsatisfactory decision and one that is out of step generally with recent Strasbourg jurisprudence’, Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) xxxiv.

(140) The compensation accorded was the highest award so far by the ECtHR for personal injury.

(141) Indeed, they had conceded breach of the other Articles.

(142) C. Gearty, ‘Osman Unravels’ (2002) 65 MLR 87.

(143) E. McKendrick, ‘Negligence and Human Rights: Re-considering Osman’ in D. Friedmann and D. Barak-Erez, Human Rights in Private Law (Oxford, 2001) 354 .

(144) [2001] 2 AC 550.

(145) [2001] 2 AC 592.

(146) E. McKendrick, ‘Negligence and Human Rights: Re-considering Osman’ in D. Friedmann and D. Barak-Erez, Human Rights in Private Law (Oxford, 2001) 354 .

(147) Respectively in Chap. 3, sect. 3.2.2, and Chap. 4, sect. 2.1.1.

(148) See sect. 2.1.2.1 above.

(149) [2001] 2 AC 550.

(150) See sect. 4.2. below.

(151) [2001] 2 AC 550, 568 and 588–90.

(152) See pp. 74–5 above.

(153) For those that attended the hearing of Barrett in July 1998, well before the decision in Osman was handed down by the ECtHR, it was evident that their Lordships were already very uncomfortable with the restrictive position of the law as articulated in the child abuse claims in X (Minors).

(154) Other than in the judgment of Lord Browne-Wilkinson: see text accompanying n. 132 above.

(155) Referring explicitly to W v Essex CC [2001] 2 AC 592, and Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550.

(156) Is the reference in the ECtHR's judgment in para. 100 ([2001] 2 FLR 612) to the fact that ‘the ruling of law concerning [the fair, just and reasonable criterion] in this case does not disclose the operation of an immunity’ (emphasis added) a veiled threat? In other words, might a blanket exclusionary rule in the context of negligence infringe Art. 6? For discussion of this point see T. Hickman, ‘Negligence and Article 6: The Great Escape?’ (2002) 61 CLJ 14 .

(157) J. Wright, Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) p. xxxv .

(158) See Dart v Isle of Wight Council (QBD, 14 Feb. 2002), Gross J: ‘[b]efore exercising its power to strike out a statement of case which appears to disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim, the court must take into account the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) and, in particular Art. 6.1 thereof (right of access to a court); blanket immunities from liability may well offend in this regard.’ In Kane v New Forest District Council [2002] 1 WLR 312, 319, May LJ held: ‘I reject Mr Snell's submission that a planning authority has blanket immunity from claims for negligence whatever the facts. That is simply not consonant with recent developments of the law both in this jurisdiction and in Strasbourg: see for example Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550 and Osman v United Kingdom (1998) 29 EHRR 245.’ In Cowan v Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ. 1699, Keene LJ held that ‘[i]t is clear from Hill itself (page 59) that the police do not enjoy a blanket immunity for all police operations, nor is such an immunity contended for in the present appeal. Indeed such an immunity, were it to exist, could still create difficulties in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Osman, despite the subsequent decision of that court in Z v. United Kingdom’.

(159) As they are statutorily obliged to do: ss 2(1) and 8(4) HRA.

(160) By virtue of s 8 HRA. See further M. Amos, ‘Damages for Breach of the Human Rights Act 1998’ [1999] EHRLR 178; D. Fairgrieve, ‘The Human Rights Act 1998, Damages and Tort Law’ [2001] PL 695. See Chap. 3, sect. 3.3.2.

(161) Note however that the HRA will not provide a remedy for those who sustained their injuries before 2 Oct. 2000 and who will still be left without an effective remedy on the basis of X (Minors). See discussion in J. Wright, Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) p. xxxiv .

(162) I. Leigh and L. Lustgarten, ‘Making Rights Real: The Courts, Remedies and the Human Rights Act’ [1999] CLJ 509, 527.

(163) A. Lester and D. Pannick, ‘The Impact of the Human Rights Act on Private Law: The Knight's Move’ [2000] 116 LQR 380, 383 .

(164) Kane v New Forest District Council [2002] 1 WLR 312; Dart v Isle of Wight Council (QBD, 14 Feb. 2002), Gross J: ‘[t]here is…no blanket immunity for local or planning authorities or their officers.’

(165) Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria [1999] 1 All ER 550; Cowan v Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ. 1699; Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 407.

(166) In S v Gloucestershire CC [2001] Fam 313, 338, May LJ held that ‘in an ordinary case a local authority defendant is unlikely to establish a defence which relies on a blanket immunity…. Thus it seems to me that it would be incorrect to say, as counsel for the local authorities were inclined to submit in appeals before this court, that cases which may be labelled as child abuse cases are bound to fail as a class.’

(167) In Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36, 51, Lord Woolf opined that ‘[i]n so far as the Osman case [1999] 1 FLR 193 underlined the dangers of a blanket approach so much the better’.

(168) Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435,446 (Lord Hope), 456 (Lord Clyde), and 468 (Lord Hutton).

(169) As the right to a remedy is dependent upon the definition of a wrong.

(170) Brooks v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2002] EWCA Civ 407, per Kennedy LJ.

(171) See, e.g., Cowan v Chief Constable for Avon and Somerset Constabulary [2001] EWCA Civ 1699.

(172) See comments of Lord Woolf in Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36, 51. Although the judiciary has expressed a preference to have the facts clarified before it decides difficult issues in an evolving area of the law (see, e.g., W v Essex CC [2001] 2 AC 592; Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550).

(173) Kane v New Forest District Council [2002] 1 WLR 312, 318.

(174) Kane v New Forest District Council (QBD, 27 Nov. 2001: at trial on liability, defendant conceded that it owed the claimant a duty of care which had been breached, but contested causation. Nonetheless, the defendant was found 2/3rds liable for accident).

(175) Larner v Solihull MBC [2001] RTR 32 (a duty of care could exceptionally arise in respect of a Council's statutory responsibility to promote road safety and take such measures as appeared appropriate to prevent road accidents). In Stovin, Lord Hoffmann held that there were significant obstacles to a damages claim concerning the failure to exercise a statutory power. First, it must be shown that it was irrational for the authority not to have exercised the statutory power, so that there was in effect a public law duty to act. Secondly, there must be exceptional grounds for holding that the policy of the statute conferred the right to compensation on those who suffered loss if the power was not exercised, and that the very fact that Parliament had conferred a discretion, rather than a duty, on the public body was some indication that the policy of the statute was not to create a right to compensation. This controversial latter condition was no longer mentioned in Larner. Indeed, the tone of Lord Woolf's judgment in Larner was very different from that of Lord Hoffmann in Stovin. Interestingly, some preference was indicated by Lord Woolf for Lord Nicholls' (dissenting) approach in Stovin: ‘on the other hand for the desirability of a duty in the exceptional case we adopt the reasons of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Stovin’ (para. 16).

(176) Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004,1031. And which had seemingly been intended to apply to all rescue-protective services (per Stuart-Smith LJ at 1031).

(177) Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36.

(178) For discussion of this case see T. Hickman, ‘Making Public Bodies liable for Failure to Confer Benefits’ (2000) 59 CLJ 432 .

(179) See the discussion of the Phelps case at pp. 68–71 above.

(180) [2001] Fam 313.

(181) Ibid., 338.

(182) However, in respect of one of the appeals, L v Tower Hamlets LBC and Havering LBC, the court accepted that, although there was an arguable duty of care, the claimant had no real prospect of showing a breach of the standard of care. Summary judgment was thus given in favour of the defendants in respect of that appeal.

(183) [2001] 1 WLR 1575.

(184) The Borough Council employing the social workers had not joined the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police in applying to have the claim struck out. However, it would seem difficult to draw a distinction between the roles of the social workers and police in interviewing the child, and indeed the Court of Appeal did not seem to contradict the claimants' reference to ‘professionals’ as opposed to simply the police: [2001] 1 WLR 1575, 1583.

(185) Ibid., 1588.

(186) [1995] 2 AC 633.

(187) See Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435 (the immunity from action conferred upon witnesses does not extend to things done by the police during the investigative process which could not fairly be said to form part of their participation in the judicial process as witnesses); Costello v Chief Constable of Northumbria [1999] 1 All ER 550 (the claimant, a police officer, was attacked by a prisoner whilst another police officer stood by; the Court of Appeal recognized that police were under a duty to comply with a specific or acknowledged police duty where failure to do so would expose a fellow officer to unnecessary risk of injury; May LJ held that ‘[t]here is in my view in this case a strong public policy consideration to balance with those identified in Hill, that is that the law should accord with common sense and public perception’).

(188) P. Craig and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ [1999] PL 626, 638–9; W. van Gerven, J. Lever, and P. Larouche, Tort Law (Oxford, 2000) 368 and 390 .

(189) See the broader discussion of the impact of this in the conclusion: Chap. 9, sect. 3.2.4.

(190) Generally, see Markesinis and Deakin, 155–73.

(191) Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. There is some limited scope for the courts to review the reasonableness of the professional standards: see Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232, 241–3.

(192) P. Cane, The Anatomy of Tort Law (Oxford, 1997) 41 ; A. Dugdale and K. M. Stanton, Professional Negligence (London, 1998) para. 15.19 .

(193) Markesinis and Deakin, 159; R.A. Buckley, The Modern Law of Negligence (3rd edn, London, 1999) para. 15.06 .

(194) [2001] 2 AC 550, 572 and 591.

(195) Ibid., 572 and 591.

(196) [2001] 2 AC 619, 655.

(197) Ibid., 672. See also Robinson v St Helens MBC [2002] EWCA Civ 1099, para. 31.

(198) Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No 1) [1997] AC 464 (a striking-out action); Swinney v Chief Constable of Northumbria Police (No 2), The Times, 25 May 1999 (at trial).

(199) Bradford-Smart v West Sussex CC [2001] ELR 138 (upheld in CA: [2002] EWCA Civ. 07); H v Isle of Wight Council (QBD, 23 Feb. 2001); Larner v Solihull MBC [2001] RTR 32; Smith v Secretary of State for Health (QBD, 15 Feb. 2002); Liennard v Slough Borough Council [2002] EWNC 398.

(200) R 3.4(2)(a) CPR.

(201) R 24.2 CPR.

(202) See R 24.5 CPR.

(203) [2001] Fam 313.

(204) There are however some restrictive conditions which must be satisfied before the courts can make such a summary judgment. In essence, these are that all substantial facts relevant to the allegations of negligence are before the court and that there is no real prospect of successfully disputing them: [2001] Fam 313, 342. May LJ also recognized that there may be cases where a summary judgment could be given even if there was a gap in evidence, ‘where the court concludes, for instance from the passage of time, that there is no real prospect of the gaps being filled’ (ibid.).

(205) In line with Lord Nicholls' exhortation in Phelps: [2001] 2 AC 619, 667.

(206) See Chap. 9, sect. 3.2.4.

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

(208) Generally see Craig, 875–80; Arrowsmith, 226–34; Wade and Forsyth, 765–71; J. McBride, ‘Damages as a Remedy for Unlawful Administrative Action’ [1979] CLJ 323; M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Misfeasance in Public Office, Governmental Liability and European Influences’ (2002) 51 ICLQ 757 .

(209) Ashby v White (1703) 3 Ld Raym 320.

(210) Malice was accepted as the basis for the action: Harman v Tappenden (1802) 1 East 555; Cullen v Morris (1819) 2 Stark 577; Tozer v Child (1857) 7 E & B 377.

(211) Henly v Lyme Corporation (1858) 5 Bing. 91 at 107. See Wade and Forsyth, 768.

(212) L. Busch, Misfeasance in Public Office (Mstud thesis, University of Oxford, 1998).

(213) [1908] 1 KB 170. See comments of Auld LJ in Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire (CA, 10 Feb. 2000).

(214) Three Rivers DC [2000] 2 WLR 1220 (HL first decision); Three Rivers DC [2001] UKHL 16 (HL second decision).

(215) At first instance, after initial proceedings concerning various preliminary issues of law, Clarke J acceded to the Bank of England's application to strike out the action (Judgment of 30 July 1997, unreported). The CA upheld Clarke J's decision in a joint majority judgment of Hirst and Robert Walker LJJ; Auld LJ dissented: Three Rivers DC v Bank of England [1999] EuLR 211.

(216) Three Rivers DC [2000] 2 WLR 1220.

(217) First Council Banking Co-ordination Directive of 12 Dec. 1977 (77/780/EEC).

(218) Which itself is controversial: see further M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Misfeasance in Public Office, Governmental Liability and European Influences’ (2002) 51 ICLQ 757 .

(219) Under the transition arrangements guiding the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) in 1999, the question whether the misfeasance claim should be struck out was determined according to the CPR: Three Rivers District Council [2001] UKHL 16, paras. 12–13.

(220) The Bank of England asked the HL to give summary judgment against the claimants under r 24.2 CPR. Lords Steyn, Hope, and Hutton allowed the appeal against the striking out of the claim. Lords Hobhouse and Millett dissented.

(221) Sir T. Bingham, Inquiry into the Supervision of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (HC Paper (1992–93) No 198.

(222) The findings and conclusions in the Bingham report were the result of an investigation that lacked the benefit of statutory powers and was conducted behind closed doors. The claimants were not present, nor were they represented. Bingham LJ had no power to compel the attendance of witnesses or to require the production of documents, and there was no counsel to the enquiry.

(223) Three Rivers DC [2001] UKHL 16, paras. 33, 80, and 86 (Lord Hope), 132 (Lord Hutton).

(224) Three Rivers DC [2000] 2 WLR 1220, 1230–31.

(225) Ibid.

(226) P. Cane, ‘Mens Rea in Tort Law’ (2000) 20 OJLS 533.

(227) Bourgoin SA v MATT [1986] QB 716, 776. See also Dunlop v Woollahra Municipal Council [1982] AC 158, 172.

(228) Three Rivers DC [2000] 2 WLR 1230 and [2001] UKHL 16.

(229) See argument in the Court of Appeal: Three Rivers DC [1999] EuLR 211, 243.

(230) Three Rivers DC [1999] EuLR 211, 270–2, 370 (CA).

(231) Three Rivers DC [2001] UKHL 16, para. 41.

(232) Ibid., paras. 44, 46, 62, and 76.

(233) See, e.g., ibid., para. 58.

(234) Ibid., para. 62. Another variant of this is referred to in Lord Hobhouse's judgment as ‘blind eye knowledge’—see para. 164.

(235) See Satnam and Kewal S (1984) 78 Cr. App. R 141.

(236) A. Ashworth, Principles of Criminal Law (3rd edn, 1999) 186–7.

(237) Three Rivers DC [2001] UKHL 16, para. 60.

(238) See Auld LJ's judgment in Three Rivers DC [1999] EuLR 211, 381–2 (CA).

(239) Three Rivers DC [2001] UKHL 16, para. 61.

(240) Ibid., para. 46.

(241) Ibid., para. 60.

(242) Ibid., paras. 60 and 76. He also expressed this in terms of the following test: ‘the public officer was aware of a serious risk of loss due to an act or omission on his part which he knew to be unlawful but chose deliberately to disregard that risk’ (para. 46).

(243) Ibid., paras. 57 and 62.

(244) Ibid., para. 62.

(245) Ibid., paras. 44 and 62.

(246) Ibid., para. 44.

(247) Ibid., para. 62.

(248) For a restrictive interpretation of the bad faith requirement in the Court of Appeal see Greville v Sprake [2001] EWCA Civ 234; Thomas v Chief Constable of Cleveland [2001] EWCA Civ 1552.

(249) Banking Act 1987, s 1(4). See now Sch. 1, s.19(1) to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

(250) See discussion in sect. 2.1.2.1 above.

(251) [1999] EuLR 211, 270–2 (CA).

(252) [2000] 2 WLR 1220, 1233 and 1267.

(253) For general discussion see Chap. 7, sect. 2.1.1.

(254) Bourgoin SA v MAFF [1986] QB 716; Roncarelli v Duplessis (1959) 16 DLR (2d) 689 (Can. Sup. Ct).

(255) Greville v Syrake [2001] EWCA Civ. 234; Thomas v Chief Constable of Cleveland [2001] EWCA Civ. 1552; L v Reading Borough Council [2001] 1 WLR 1575; Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary [2001] 2 WLR 1789; Darker v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [2001] 1 AC 435; Chief Constable of Kent v Rixon, The Times, 11 Apr. 2000; Abdul Rauf Qazi v London Borough of Waltham Forest (QBD, 3 Aug. 1999); Harris v Evans [1998] 3 All ER 522; Barnard v Restormel BC [1998] 3 PLR 27.

(256) Hall v Bank of England (CA, 19 Apr. 2000) (the Bank of England was sued for misfeasance in public office, on the basis of the Bank's alleged inaction in supervising a company, Bradford Investments Plc, of which the claimants were shareholders).

(257) Racz v Home Office [1994] 2 AC 45 (refusal to strike out a claim in respect of vicarious liability for misfeasance of prison officers); Elliott v Chief Constable of Wiltshire, The Times, 5 Dec. 1996 (refusal to strike out an action arising from the revelation of a journalist's criminal convictions by a police officer); Toumia v Evans The Times, 1 Apr. 1999 (refusal to strike out the alleged misfeasance of prison warders in refusing to unlock prisoners' cells).

(258) Harmon Façades Ltd v The Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (1999) 67 Con. LR 1; Harmon CFEM Façades (UK) Ltd v Corporate Officer of the House of Commons (No 2) (2000) 72 Con. LR 21.

(259) [2001] UKHL 16, paras. 6, 33, and 80.

(260) Ibid., para. 92.

(261) Ibid., paras. 60 and 76.

(262) See generally Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880; Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264; Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655; Hussain v Lancaster CC [2000] QB 1.

(263) A-G v PY A Quarries Ltd [1957] 2 QB 169, 190.

(264) Markesinis and Deakin, 450–4.

(265) Different conditions of actionability also apply: only if the claimant can show that he or she has suffered particular or special loss which is appreciably different from that suffered by the general public can an action be brought in public nuisance: Tate & Lyle Industries Ltd v GLC [1983] 2 AC 509. See Winfield and Jolowiczc, para. 14.3.

(266) Ibid., para. 14.4.

(267) Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880, 903.

(268) St Helen's Smelting Co v Tipping (1865) 11 HLC 642.

(269) Ignoring abnormal sensitivity of property: Robinson v Kilvert (1889) 41 Ch D 88.

(270) See Crown River Cruises Ltd v Kimbolton Fireworks Ltd [1996] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 533, 544.

(271) Cambridge Water Co Ltd v Eastern Counties Leather Plc [1994] 2 AC 264, 300.

(272) See generally Winfield and Jolowicz, paras. 14.13–14.14; Markesinis and Deakin, 432–4; M. Brazier and J. Murphy, Street on Torts (London, 1999) 374 ; N. McBride and R. Bagshaw, Tort Law (Harlow, 2001) 303–4 .

(273) [1994] 2 AC 264, 300 (hereinafter referred to as Cambridge Water).

(274) Ibid.

(275) See Cambridge Water [1994] 2 AC 264.

(276) Sedleigh-Denfield v O'Callaghan [1940] AC 880, 904–5. See also Leakey v National Trust [1980] QB 485; Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd [2002] 2 WLR 932.

(277) Winfield and Jolowicz, paras. 14.13–14.14.

(278) See Markesinis and Deakin, 434.

(279) See ibid., 440–5.

(280) See Chap. 2, sect. 2.4.

(281) Arrowsmith, 211.

(282) Allen v Gulf Oil Ltd [1981] AC 1001, 1013. See Craig, 881; Arrowsmith, 212.

(283) Hammersmith and City Railway Co v Brand (1869) LR 4 HL 171; Allen v Gulf Oil Ltd [1981] AC 1001.

(284) Allen v Gulf Oil Ltd [1981] AC 1001, 1011. See also Manchester Corp v Farnworth [1930] AC 171.

(285) Generally, see the discussion by Arrowsmith at 214.

(286) Metropolitan Asylum District v Hill (1881) 6 App. Cas. 193.

(287) Brighton and South Coast Railway Co v Truman (1886) 11 App. Cas. 45; Edgington v Swindon Corp. [1939] 1 KB 86.

(288) Arrowsmith, 217.

(289) DoT v North West Water Authority [1984] AC 336, 359.

(290) Ibid.

(291) Arrowsmith, 224.

(292) See sects. 2.1.2.4 and 2.2.1.3 above.

(293) [2002] 2 WLR 932 (QBD and CA). See also, for measure of damages, Marcic v Thames Water Utilities Ltd (No 2) [2002] 2 WLR 1000.

(294) [2002] 2 WLR 932, 951.

(295) For a broader discussion of damages under the HRA see Chap. 3, sect. 3.3.2.

(296) [2002] 2 WLR 932, 996–7.

(297) For discussion of the question of liability under the principle in Rylands v Fletcher, which was expressly left open by the CA see Chap. 5, sect. 3.3.

(298) [2002] 2 WLR 932, 995. The Court relied particularly upon Goldman v Hargrave [1967] 1 AC 645 and Leakey v National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [1980] QB 485.

(299) Glossop v Heston & Isleworth Local Board (1879) 12 Ch.D 102; Robinson v Mayor and Corp of the Borough of Workington [1897] 1 QB 619; Hesketh v Birmingham Corf [1924] 1 KB 260; Smeaton v Ilford Corp [1954] Ch 450.

(300) [2002] 2 WLR 932, 998.

(301) Ibid., 959.

(302) Ibid., 959.

(303) Ibid., 959.

(304) Ibid., 967.

(305) Ibid.

(306) Indeed, Judge Richard Havery QC concluded that under the HRA he was empowered to ‘consider the merits of this case, albeit giving the defendant a wide margin of discretion’: [2002] 2 WLR 932, 962.

(307) [2000] QB 1.

(308) J. Morgan, ‘Nuisance, Property and Human Rights’ (2002) 118 LQR 26, 28 ; R. Bagshaw, case note on the Marcic decisions, published at www.booksites.net/mcbride.

(309) It has been argued that human rights law has radically reshaped the pre-existing common law position: ‘this is one of those cases which has been decided purportedly under the existing common law but which involves departures from what has been commonly understood to be the common law of nuisance. This has taken place in the shadow of the 1998 Act and has been influenced by it’: Owain Thomas of 1 Crown Office Row: see case note at www.1cor.com.

(310) The proof of which is thus borne by the defendant.

(311) An approach which, paradoxically, was also reflected in parts of the decision, for instance Lord Phillips referred to this question as ‘breach of the duty to take reasonable steps’ and not a defence (para. 112).

(312) [2002] 2 WLR 932, 998–9.

(313) On which see T. Hickman, ‘Tort law, Public Authorities and the Human Rights Act 1998’ in D. Fairgrieve, M. Andenas, and J. Bell (eds.), Tort Liability of Public Authorities in Comparative Perspective (London, 2002) .

(314) See Chap. 5, sect. 3.3.

(315) See discussion by N. McBride and R. Bagshaw, Tort Law (Harlow, 2001) 318 .

(316) J. Wright, Tort Law and Human Rights (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) 189 . In this respect see the dissenting judgment of Lord Cooke in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, 711.

(317) e.g. Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498. For further discussion see R. Clayton and H. Tomlinson, Civil Actions Against the Police (London, 1992) chap. 4 .

(318) See p. 39 above.

(319) Namely that the rule of Community law which has been infringed is intended to confer rights on individuals; the breach of this rule is sufficiently serious; and there was a direct causal link between the breach and the loss alleged. See Cases C-6/90 & C-9/90, Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy [1991] ECR 1–5357; Cases C-46/93 & C-48/93, Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany; R. v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd [1996] ECR 1–1029.

(320) See P. Craig, ‘Once More Unto the Breach: The Community, the State and Damages Liability’ (1997) 113 LQR 67 .

(321) See Chap. 3, sect. 3.3.1. and 4.

(322) [1999] 3 WLR 1062.

(323) Particularly when the negligence claim is concerned with the breach of rules.

(324) See the text accompanying n. 261 above.

(325) Markesinis, Auby et al., 16.

(326) Note that discussion of lawfully caused loss will be found in Chap. 5.

(327) e.g. CE 24 Mar. 1976, Thiemard [1976] Rec 179; CE 27 Jan. 1988, Giraud [1988] Rec 39. A translation of this latter case may be found in the Appendix.

(328) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’, Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994), 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif, para. 65; J. Moreau, Droit Public: Droit Administratif (3rd edn, Paris, 1995) ii, 632 .

(329) 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 (Paris, 1988), para. 293 . See also Guettier, 141.

(330) See P. Duez, La Responsabilite de la Puissance Publique (2nd edn, Paris, 1938) 20 ; Paillet, n. 328 above; Gour, n. 329 above; L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 51 ; M. Paillet, La Faute du Service Public en Droit Administratif Français (Paris, 1980) .

(331) See Paillet, n. 328 above, paras. 65–94 and the authors cited therein.

(332) Gour, n. 329 above, para. 234: ‘breach of a public service obligation’; Paillet, n. 328 above, para. 86; Richer, n. 330 above; Moreau, n. 328 above, 630.

(333) See, e.g., CE 10 Dec. 1986, Adolphe [1986] Rec 706.

(334) C. Harlow, ‘Fault Liability in French and English Public Law’ (1976) 39 MLR 516, 517 .

(335) J. Rivero and J. Waline, Droit Administratif (17th edn, Paris, 1998) para. 285 ; M. Rougevin-Baville, La Responsabilité Administrative (Paris, 1992) 58 . See from a comparative1 perspective Markesinis, Auby et al., 16; G. Eorsi, ‘Liability for the Torts of Employees and Organs’, chap. 4 in A. Tunc (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, xi, Torts.

(336) J. Moreau, ‘Principes Generaux et Concepts Fondamentaux de la Responsabilite Administrative’, Fascicule 700, 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif para. 76; M. Rougevin-Baville, La Responsabilité Administrative (Paris, 1992) 58 ; J. Moreau, La Responsabilité Administrative (2nd edn, Paris, 1996) 66 .

(337) CE 20 Oct. 1976, Alfortville [1976] Rec 1116. See M.-A. Latournerie, ‘The Law of France’ in J. Bell and A. Bradley (eds.), Governmental Liability: A Comparative Study (London, 1991) 206–7 .

(338) Paillet, n. 328 above, para. 140.

(339) CE 9 July l975, Ville de Cognac [1975] Rec 413 (supervision of swimmers); CAA Nancy 18 Apr. 1989, Commune de Beauvais [1989] Rec 903 (fire service); CE 10 June 1988, Parize-Farin, RDP 1989.551 (police activities); CE 20 Oct. 1976, Alfortville [1976] Rec 1116 (food hygiene in schools).

(340) 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 (Paris, 1988) para. 292 .

(341) See further Chap. 8, sect. 3.1.

(342) Report 89/A/2176, Inner London Education Authority, 26 listed in F.G. Laws, Guide to the Local Government Ombudsman Service (Harlow, 1990) paras. 6.4.1–08 ; Report 97/A/821 in the Commission's Digest of Cases 1997, Section A: Education (London, 1998) 5–6.

(343) N. Lewis, M. Seneviratne, and S. Cracknell, Complaints Procedures in Local Government (Sheffield, 1987) para. 2.11.3 .

(344) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’ Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994), Volume 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif paras. 116–120. See comments in the medical malpractice case of CAA Paris 13 June 1996, Reix, Req 94PA00690.

(345) CE 9 May 1989, Centre Hospitalier de Castelnaudry [1989] Rec 909.

(346) CE 28 June 1961, André-des-Alpes [1961] Rec 440; CE 20 Nov. 1968, Compagnie d'Assurances ‘La Fortune’ [1968] Rec 579.

(347) CE 20 Oct. 1976, Alfortville [1976] Rec 1116.

(348) C. Gour, ‘Faute de Service’ in F. Gazier and R. Drago (eds.), Dalloz Encyclopédic de Droit Public: Répertoire de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (Paris, 1988) para. 280 .

(349) e.g. CE 20 Oct. 1972, Marabout [1972] Rec 664.

(350) Gour, n. 329 above, para. 284.

(351) L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 88 .

(352) CE 10 July 1992, Touzan [1992] Rec 296.

(353) CE 9 Oct. 1974, Ballu [1974] Rec 476.

(354) J. Bell, S. Boyron, and S. Whittaker, Principles of French Law (Oxford, 1998) 190 .

(355) J. Moreau, La Responsabilité Administrative (2nd edn, Paris, 1995) 64–6 .

(356) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’ Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994), Volume 8, Juris-Classeur Administratis paras. 26–32.

(357) CE 6 Oct. 1976, Société Clinique Chirurgicale de la Maison Rose, [1976] Rec 397 (fault of blood transfusion centre); CE 27 July 1990, Bourgeois [1990] Rec 242 (tax).

(358) e.g. CE 27 June 1997, Guyot [1997] Rec 267.

(359) CE 26 July 1918, Lemonnier [1918] Rec 762; CE 10 Feb. 1905, Tomaso Grecco, D.1906.3.81.

(360) CE 4 Jan. 1918, Zulémaro [1918] Rec 9.

(361) CE 24 June 1953, Briançon [1953] Rec 317.

(362) CE 21 Dec. 1962, Husson-Chiffre [1962] Rec 701.

(363) It is in fact rare for the administrative courts actually to advert to ‘faute simple’ preferring ‘faute de nature à engager la responsabilité.’ But, for an explicit reference to the faute simple–faute lourde dichotomy see CE 4 Dec. 1995, Delavallade [1995] Rec 1021.

(364) Heralded by CE 8 Nov. 1935, Vion [1935] Rec 1019.

(365) Guettier, 111.

(366) CE 26 June 1959, Rouzet [1959] Rec 405.

(367) CE 7 Oct. 1955, Hervé [1955] Rec 470.

(368) CE 9 Nov. 1959, Sarotte [1959] Rec 591.

(369) See CG Legal's conclusions in CE 10 Apr. 1992, Epoux V, AJDA 1992.355, 361. See the critical comments of the Médiateur (French Ombudsman) on the application of faute lourde in the medical sphere: Rapport Annuel 1991 (Paris) 140.

(370) C. Esper, ‘Le Dernier Etat de la Responsabilité des Hôpitaux Publics’, Droit de la Santé, 12–13 July 1995, 3, 4.

(371) CE 10 Apr. 1992, Epoux V [1992] Rec 171.

(372) Ibid.

(373) Chapus, para. 1465. Note, however, that the notion of a ‘faute caractérisée’ (which does not necessarily mean faute lourde) has been introduced into medical law (administrative and civil law) by virtue of the so-called ‘anti-Perruche law’ which was enacted to overturn the controversial Cour de Cassation decision allowing a wrongful life claim by a handicapped child (Cass Ass Plen 17 Nov. 2000, Perruche, D.2001 Jurisprudence 332; JCP 2001.11.10438). See Art. 1 of Law 2002–303 of 4 Mar. 2002 relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de santé, Journal Officiel N^o 54 of 5 Mar. 2002.

(374) C. Esper, ‘Le Dernier Etat de la Responsabilité des Hôpitaux Publics’, Droit de la Santé, 12–13 July 1995, 3, 5.

(375) Chapus, para. 1465. See also M. Deguergue, ‘La Responsabilité des Hôpitaux Publics’ [1999] Responsabilité Civile et Assurances 20, 21.

(376) AJDA 1992.355, 362.

(377) Law 2002–303 of 4 Mar. 2002, n. 373 above, Gazette du Palais, 4 April 2002, Bulletin Législatif 2002.113.

(378) See Chap. 8, sect. 5.

(379) Deguergue, 231.

(380) CE 27 July 1979, Triolle [1979] Rec 873.

(381) CE 27 Oct. 1971, Markovitch [1971] Rec 640.

(382) CE 23 Dec. 1981, Andlauer [1981] Rec 487.

(383) M. Cliquennois, ‘Essai Sur La Responsabilité de l'Etat du Fait de Ses Activités de Contrôle et de Tutelle’, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 98, 16 Aug. 1995, 4.

(384) Deguergue, 233.

(385) Application of faute lourde: CAA Paris 17 Oct. 1991, Hellot, AJDA 1992.127; application of faute simple: CAA Nantes 23 May 1990, Boudin [1990] Rec 450.

(386) CE 9 Apr. 1993, Monsieur G [1993] Rec 110.

(387) Chapus, para. 1473. See also F. Raynaud and P. Fombeur, AJDA 1998.418, 423; P. Bon and P. Terneyre D.1996 Sommaires Commentés 47; Conseil d'Etat, La Responsabilité Pénale des Agents Publics en cas d'Infractions Non-Intentionnelles (Paris, 1996) 139–40 .

(388) CE 13 Mar. 1998, Améon, AJDA 1998.461; R. Errera, ‘Recent Decisions of the Conseil d'Etat’ [1999] PL 164.

(389) CE 25 Mar. 1994, Commune de Kintzheim [1994] Rec 162.

(390) CE 21 June 2000, Commune de Roquebrune-Cap-Martin [2000] Rec 236; CE 6 Oct. 2000, Commune de Saint-Florent, RFDA 2001.152.

(391) CAA Paris 25 Jan. 2000, Kechichian, Req 93PA01250.

(392) CAA Paris 30 Mar. 1999, El Shikh, AJDA.1999.951. See the discussion in M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve, ‘To Supervise or to Compensate? A Comparative Study of State Liability for Negligent Banking Supervision’ in M. Andenas and D. Fairgrieve, Judicial Review in International Perspective (Deventer, 2000) 348 .

(393) CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, AJDA 2002.136. A translation of this case may be found in the Appendix.

(394) Following the issuing of a formal ‘lettre de suite’, which had been motivated by an inspection which had uncovered weaknesses in the bank's finances.

(395) CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002, 7, 20.

(396) Confirmed by the application of faute lourde in a decision concerning the alleged negligence of the insurance regulator, La Commission de Contrôle des Assurances: CE 18 Feb. 2002, Groupe Norbert Dentressangle, Req 214179.

(397) See nn. 386–389 above.

(398) The liability of tax authorities which falls within the ambit of the civil courts is not covered in this study. See C. Bréchon-Moulènes, ‘Régimes Législatifs Spéciaux d'Indemnisation Relevant de la Juridiction Judiciaire’, in F. Gazier and R. Drago (eds.), Encyclopédic Dalloz, Répertoire de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique (Paris, 1988) paras. 116–48 .

(399) J.-F. Touchard, ‘A Propos de la Responsabilité Pour Faute de l'Administration Fiscale’, RDP 1992.785, 789.

(400) CE 31 Oct. 1990, Champagne [1990] Rec 309.

(401) CE 27 July 1990, Bourgeois [1990] Rec 242; CE 29 Dec. 1997, Commune d'Arcueil [1997] Rec 512; CAA Paris 13 Oct. 1998, Guillet, Req 96PA00380.

(402) The categorization of police activities is on functional rather than organizational criteria, so that public bodies which are institutionally unconnected with the administrative police may be considered to have exercised police powers. The definitive study on this topic is: E. Picard, La Notion de Police Administrative (Paris, 1984) .

(403) See CAA Nantes 27 Apr. 2000, SCI La Gravelle, Req 97NT00286; CAA Lyon 4 Mar. 1999, Christou, Req 95LY01812; CAA Marseille 4 Mar. 1999, Compagnie Assurances Générales de France, Req 97MA00276; CE 4 Dec. 1995, Delavallade [1995] Rec 1021.

(404) J.-F. Couzinet, ‘La Notion de Faute Lourde Administrative’, RDP 1977.283, 306.

(405) CE 25 Mar. 1966, Société ‘Les Films Marceau’ [1966] Rec 240.

(406) CE 10 Dec. 1986, Robert [1986] Rec 701.

(407) M. Paillet, La Faute du Service Public en Droit Administratif Français (Paris, 1980) para. 226 ; L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 115 .

(408) See Deguergue, 215–16; Paillet, n. 407 above, para. 226.

(409) CE 31 Mar. 1965, Peydessus [1965] Rec 213.

(410) CE 4 Dec. 1995, Delavallade [1995] Rec 1021. See M. Paillet, ‘Dommages Causés à un Agriculteur par des Pigeons Proliférant sur le Territoire d'une Commune’, Les Petits Affiches N^o 59, 15 May 1996, 22.

(411) Unpublished conclusions of CG Piveteau in CE 4 Dec. 1995, Delavallade [1995] Rec 1021.

(412) R. Odent, JCP 1973.II.17373; M. Paillet, La Faute du Service Public en Droit Administratif Francais (Paris, 1980) para. 226 ; L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 116 .

(413) CE 20 Oct. 1972, Marabout [1972] Rec 664; CE 27 Apr. 1979, Société Le Profil [1979] Rec 170; CE 25 Sept. 1992, SCI Le Panorama [1992] Rec 1160.

(414) L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 116 .

(415) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Preuve et Qualification’, Fascicule 820 (1993, updated 1994) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif; Cabanes and Léger AJDA 1972.581, 583; Deguergue, 217.

(416) See sect. 2.1.1 above.

(417) CE 18 Nov. 1994, Sauvi [1994] Rec 503. See generally J.-M. Auby, ‘La Responsabilité des Services Publics de Lutte Contre L'Incendie’, D.1957 Chronique 97; P. Marchessou ‘Le Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique à l'Occasion des Incendies’, RDP 1980.765; X. Prétot, ‘La Responsabilité des Services d'Incendie et de Secours’, RDP 1998.1001, 1008.

(418) CE 29 Apr. 1998, Commune de Hannappes, RDP 1998.1012. See also CE 29 Dec. 1999, Communauté Urbaine de Lille [1999] Rec 436 (a translation of this case may be found in the Appendix) and the earlier case of CAA Nancy 18 Apr. 1989, Commune de Beauvais [1989] Rec 903.

(419) CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82.

(420) CE 13 Mar. 1998, Améon, AJDA 1998.461.

(421) CE 18 Nov. 1994, Sauvi [1994] Rec 503.

(422) X. Prétot, ‘La Responsabilité des Services d'Incendie et de Secours’, RDP 1998.1001, 1010.

(423) J.-M. Auby, ‘Le Contentieux Administratif du Service Public Pénitentiaire’, RDP 1987.547. See CAA Nancy 9 July 1992, Verron [1992] Rec 1298; CAA Nantes 26 July 1991, Onno, RFDA 1992.269.

(424) It has been observed that faute lourde is essentially a very ‘open-textured’ notion: L. Fonbaustier, La Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait des activités de contrôle et de sanction des autorités administratives indépendantes (DEA Dissertation, Paris, 1993) 42.

(425) Chapus, para. 1463: ‘Nothing is more malleable than the notion of faute lourde.’

(426) See sect. 4.1.

(427) Which is a somewhat circular definition and of limited assistance. As Chapus notes: ‘[e]ndeavouring to define this notion, one is liable to conclude that according to that elegant formula faute lourde is a fault which is more serious than a faute simple’ (para. 1463).

(428) CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2001. 2002, 7, 10.

(429) Deguergue, 637; G. Soulier, ‘Réflexions Sur l'Evolution et l'Avenir du Droit de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique’, RDP 1969.1039, 1083–4.

(430) See further discussion in Chap. 3, sect. 2.2.2.

(431) See, e.g., CE 7 July 1971, Gérard [1971] Rec 513.

(432) CE 29 June 1990, Société CERP [1990] Rec 193.

(433) CE 21 June 1972, Foucault [1972] Rec 461.

(434) CE 29 June 1990, Societe Groupe CERP [1990] Rec 193.

(435) L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 135; CG Stahl's conclusions in CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82, 86.

(436) Deguergue, 638. See also L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 112 ; J.-F. Touchard, ‘A Propos de la Responsabilité Pour Faute de l'Administration Fiscale’, RDP 1992.785, 806.

(437) Conclusions of CG Touvet in CE 6 Oct. 2000, Commune de Saint-Florent, RFDA 2001.152; (unreported).

(438) G. Soulier, ‘Réflexions Sur l'Evolution et l'Avenir du Droit de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique’, RDP 1969.1039, 1083; S. Rials, Le Juge Administratif Français et la Technique du Standard (Paris, 1980) 422 ; F. Llorens RDP 1988.551, 558–60; CG Stahl's conclusions in CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82, 85.

(439) See R. Odent's case note on CE 20 Oct. 1972, Marabout, JCP 1973.II.17373. Explicit judicial recognition of this may be found in CE 27 Sept. 1995, Corré, Req 148104.

(440) Chapus, para. 1463. This is also expressed in the conclusions of CG Seban in the Kechichian case: CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002, 7, 14.

(441) See conclusions of CG Touvet in CE 21 June 2000, Commune de Roquebrune-Cap-Martin, RDP 2000.1257, 1263.

(442) M. Cliquennois, ‘Essai Sur La Responsabilité de l'Etat du Fait de Ses Activités de Contrôle et de Tutelle’, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 98, 16 Aug. 1995, 4; Deguergue, 231–4.

(443) L. Fonbaustier, La Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait des activités de contrôle et de sanction des autorités administratives indépendantes (DEA Dissertation, Paris, 1993) 44.

(444) C. Debbasch, D.1991 Jurisprudence 347, 348; Lemasurier, D.1963 Jurisprudence 588, 594. This justification is explained and criticized by J.-F. Touchard, ‘A Propos de la Responsabilité Pour Faute de l'Administration Fiscale’, RDP 1992.785, 802; R. Errera, [1998] PL 334.

(445) See n. 45 above.

(446) See Markesinis, Auby et al., 52–3.

(447) G. Soulier, ‘Réflexions sur l'Evolution et l'Avenir du Droit de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique’, RDP 1969.1039, 1084.

(448) Chapus, para. 1463.

(449) L. Fonbaustier, La Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait des activités de contrôle et de sanction des autorités administratives indépendantes (DEA Dissertation, Paris, 1993) 41.

(450) CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, AJDA 2002.136. See the text accompanying n. 391 above.

(451) M.-A. Frison-Roche, ‘L'inaction de la Commission bancaire peut constituer une faute lourde’, Le Monde, 12 Feb. 2002.

(452) See the discussion of ‘judicial policy’ by S. Rials, Le Juge Administratif Français et la Technique du Standard (Paris, 1980) para. 298 .

(453) CG Rivet's conclusions in CE 13 Mar. 1925, Clef, RDP 1925.274, 276.

(454) Art. L 781–1 of the Code de l'Organisation Judiciaire.

(455) An Avocat Général is a judge before the Cour de Cassation who represents the public interest in the judicial process and in civil cases generally performs an advisory role, making observations ‘on the application of the law to the case’: Art. 424 of the Nouveau Code de Procédure Civile. See generally J. Bell, S. Boyron, and S. Whittaker, Principles of French Law (Oxford, 1998) 57 and 83–4 .

(456) The conclusions of M. de Gouttes, Premier Avocat Général of the Cour de Cassation in Cass civ Ass 23 Feb. 2001, AJDA 2001.788. (conclusions available at www.courdecassation.fr).

(457) J.-F. Touchard, ‘A Propos de la Responsabilité Pour Faute de l'Administration Fiscale’, RDP 1992.785, 806.

(458) M. Cliquennois, ‘Essai Sur La Responsabilité de l'Etat du Fait de Ses Activités de Contrôle et de Tutelle,’ Les Petites Affiches, N^o 98, 16 Aug. 1995, 4. See also M. Guyomar and P. Collin, AJDA 2002.133, 135–6.

(459) L. Fonbaustier, La Responsabilité de l'Etat du fait des activités de contrôle et de sanction des autorités administratives indépendantes (DEA Dissertation, Paris, 1993) 45.

(460) Chapus, para. 1463.

(461) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Preuve et Qualification’ Fascicule 820 (1993, updated 1994) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif, para. 94.

(462) CG Stahl's conclusions in CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82, 86.

(463) J. Waline, ‘L'Evolution de la Responsabilité Extra-Contractuelle des Personnes Publique’ in Conseil d'Etat: Rapport Public 1994, EDCE 1994.460. See also the comment of M. Lombard, Droit Administratif (4th edn, Paris, 2001) 492 .

(464) M. Cliquennois, ‘Essai Sur La Responsabilité de l'Etat du Fait de Ses Activités de Contrôle et de Tutelle’ Les Petites Affiches, N^o 98, 16 Aug. 1995, 4.

(465) Conclusions in CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82, 87.

(466) R. Errera [1990] PL 571. See also F. Raynaud and P. Fombeur, AJDA 1998.418, 424; Waline, n. 463 above, 465.

(467) In his conclusions in CE 9 June 1995, Lesprit, AJDA 1995.745.

(468) See CG Goulard's conclusions in CE 29 Dec.1997, Commune d'Arcueil, RFDA 1998.97,100.

(469) This is a topic which has been somewhat overlooked by French jurists. But see CG Goulard's conclusions, n. 468 above, 100.

(470) See, e.g., CE 27 Oct. 1971, Markovitch [1971] Rec 640; CE 7 July 1971, Gérard [1971] Rec 513.

(471) CG Stahl's conclusions in CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82.

(472) Responsabilité Administrative (Paris, 1996) para. 259.

(473) CE 27 June 1997, Guyot [1997] Rec 267.

(474) CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002, 7.

(475) M. Guyomar and P. Collin, AJDA 2002.133.

(476) Ibid., 133.

(477) Ibid., 134.

(478) Ibid., 134.

(479) As expressed in the conclusions of CG Seban in the Kechichian case: CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002, 7, 12.

(480) M. Guyomar and P. Collin, AJDA 2002.133, 134; an expression also used by CG Seban in the Kechichian case: CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002, 7, 12, 13.

(481) M. Guyomar and P. Collin, AJDA 2002.133, 134.

(482) CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002, 7, 11.

(483) Generally on this topic see O. Gohin, Contentieux Administratif (Paris, 1999) ; R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (9th edn, Paris, 2001) ; C. Debbasch ‘La Charge de la Preuve devant le Juge Administratif’, D.1983 Chronique 43.

(484) CE 7 Feb. 1969, M'Barek [1969] Rec 87.

(485) See F. Llorens-Fraysse, La Présomption de Faute dans le Contentieux Administratif de la Responsabilité (Paris, 1985) ; L. de Gastines, Les Présomptions en Droit Administratif (Paris, 1991) .

(486) For more detailed analysis see O. Renard-Payen, ‘Responsabilité du Fait des Travaux et Ouvrages Publics: Dommages Subis par les Usagers’, Fascicule 932 (1999) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif.

(487) See, e.g., CE 29 Dec. 1993, Soldaini, JCP 1994.II.22322.

(488) CE 27 June 1986, Grospiron, D.1987 Jurisprudence 113.

(489) See pp. 178–9 below.

(490) See F. Llorens-Fraysse, La Présomption de Faute Dans le Contentieux Administratif de La Responsabilité (Paris, 1985) para. 359 .

(491) See CE 23 Feb. 1962, Meier [1962] Rec 122; CE 22 Dec. 1976, Dame Derridj [1976] Rec 576.

(492) CE 9 Dec. 1988, Cohen [1988] Rec 431; AJDA. 1989.405; CE 14 June 1991, Maalem, RDP 1991.1445. See further Chapus, para. 1458.

(493) CE 22 Dec. 1976, Dame Derridj [1976] Rec 576. See the development of no-fault liability in the medical sphere: Chap. 5, sect. 2.3.2. A similar debate has arisen in respect of the presumption of fault for travaux publics, with some arguing that a broad form of no-fault liability has been created: M. Rougevin-Baville, ‘Responsabilité Sans Faute’ in F. Gazier and R. Drago (eds.), Dalloz Encyclopédie de Droit Public: Répertoire de la Responsabilité de la Puissance Publique, (Paris, 1988), para. 22 . Contra Tifine, RDP 1996.1405, 1425.

(494) This will be examined in greater depth in Chap. 8, sect. 5.

(495) Law 2002–303 of 4 Mar. 2002, Gazette du Palais, 4 Apr. 2002, Bulletin Législatif 2002.113 (Loi relative aux droits des malades et à la qualité du système de soins).

(496) C. Rade, ‘La Réforme de la Responsabilité Médicale après la loi du 4 Mars 2002 rélative aux droits des maladies et à la qualité du système de santé’ [2002] Responsabilité Civile et Assurances 4, 10.

(497) CAA Bordeaux 2 Feb. 1998, Fraticola, JCP 1998.II.10041; CE 19 Oct. 1990, Ingremeau [1990] Rec 284. See Markesinis, Auby et al., 34.

(498) For a broader examination of the link between different procedural traditions and the substantive law of liability see Chap. 9, sect. 2.3.

(499) See generally R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (9th edn, Paris, 2001) para. 958 ; O. Gohin, Contentieux Administratif (Paris, 1999) para. 264 . The administrative judge plays an interventionist role, and the procedure is undoubtedly much more inquisitorial than conventional common law proceedings. However, as John Bell correctly points out, the Conseil d'Etat follows a qualified inquisitorial procedure, certainly in contrast to the approach of the French juge d'instruction (see J. Bell, French Legal Cultures (London, 2001) 160–2) .

(500) See generally J. Bell, ‘Reflections on the Procedure of the Conseil d'Etat’ in G. Hand and J. McBride, Droit Sans Frontières (Birmingham, 1991) ; Brown and Bell, chap. 5; Allison, chap. 10.

(501) For the jurisprudential basis of this see R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (9th edn, Paris, 2001) para. 991 . Note that the administrative courts may also extract relevant documents from private persons: ibid., para. 992 .

(502) CE 26 Jan. 1968, Société Maison Genestal [1968] Rec 62.

(503) CE 10 Jan. 1968, Daudens [1968] Rec 24; CE 5 Feb. 1982, SCI Résidence Georges Bizet [1982] Rec 716.

(504) R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (9th edn, Paris, 2001) para. 996 . In Mottard, it was held that ‘as the administration had failed to comply with the request [to provide information] in the appropriate time period…the administrative tribunal was correct in accepting…that Sieur Mottard's allegations were right’: CE 17 Oct. 1958, Mottard [1958] Rec 490.

(505) An expertise allows the judge to appoint an independent expert to examine and then testify directly to the court on the facts relevant to the case: See O. Gohin, Contentieux Administratif (Paris, 1999), para. 287 .

(506) See Art. R 622–1 of the Code de Justice Administrative; O. Gohin, Contentieux Administratif (Paris, 1999) para. 291 ; R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (9th edn, Paris, 2001) para. 1001 .

(507) See O. Gohin, Contentieux Administratif (Paris, 1999) para. 292 ; R. Chapus, Droit du Contentieux Administratif (9th edn, Paris, 2001) paras. 1002–1003 . The judge may decide to question the parties himself about the incident or may order a wider cross-examination by means of an enquiry by which persons are compelled by the court to appear and answer detailed questions. For the use of an enquiry in a medical malpractice case see CE 20 Mar. 1957, Hospices de Perpignan contre Sourzan [1957] Rec 190.

(508) Expertises are ‘systematically’ undertaken for public works cases (‘travaux publics’): O. Gohin, Contentieux Administratif (Paris, 1999) para. 287 . For the potent role of an expertise in proving the elements of a liability action see CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, conclusions of CG Seban, Les Petites Affiches, N^o 28, 7 Feb. 2002.

(509) For instance in Hôpital-Hospice de Voiron, the Conseil d'Etat's judgment makes it clear that it was the expert's report which had established the fault of the hospital staff: CE 24 Apr. 1964, Hôpital-Hospice de Voiron [1964] Rec 259.

(510) The court will investigate minimal elements of proof: e.g. in Epoux Hébert, CG Méric declared that to prove causation all the applicant need do was ‘provide the primary components of proof’: CE 14 June 1963, Hébert [1963] Rec 364, 370. F. Llorens-Fraysse, La Présomption de Faute dans le Contentieux Administratif de la Responsabilité (Paris, 1985) observes that ‘one can say that, in incidents such as those concerning loss caused by travaux publics, applicants would be less frequently successful, if they were systematically obliged to prove fault [without the aid of the judge]’: para. 523.

(511) The full elements of the case against the defendant as established by the inquisitorial procedure.

(512) See, e.g., CE 30 Nov. 2001, Kechichian, AJDA 2002.136; CE 22 Dec. 1976, Dame Derridj [1976] Rec 576.

(513) W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302, 311 (Lord Woolf). See C. Harlow, ‘Fault Liability in French and English Public Law’ (1976) 39 MLR 516, 527 .

(514) See pp. 37–8 above.

(515) P. Malaurie and L. Aynès, Cours de Droit Civil, vi, Les Obligations (10th edn, Paris 1999) para. 52 ; F. H. Lawson and B. Markesinis, Tortious Liability for Unintentional Harm in the Common Law and the Civil Law (Cambridge, 1982) 97 .

(516) 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 (Paris, 1988) para. 234 ; M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’ Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994), 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif, paras. 86–94; L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) ; J. Moreau, Droit Public: Droit Administratif (3rd edn, Paris, 1995) ii, 630 .

(517) Paillet, n. 328 above, para. 91.

(518) Ibid., para. 89.

(519) Ibid., para. 195 ff.

(520) CE 10 Dec. 1986, Adolphe [1986] Rec 706.

(521) CE 27 Jan. 1988, Giraud [1988] Rec 39. A translation of this case may be found in the Appendix.

(522) F. H. Lawson and B. Markesinis, Tortious Liability for Unintentional Harm in the Common Law and the Civil Law (Cambridge, 1982) 97–9 .

(523) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’ Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratis para. 86.

(524) See sect. 2.1.2.7 above.

(525) L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 54–6 .

(526) CE 26 May 1978, Wachter [1978] Rec 222.

(527) CE 1 Mar. 1974, Mourat [1974] Rec 161.

(528) See Chap. 3, sect. 2.2.2.

(529) Markesinis and Deakin, 159; M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’ Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994) 8, Juris-Classeur Administratis paras. 138–9.

(530) CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.87; Paillet, para. 259.

(531) Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246.

(532) J. Moreau, ‘Principes Généraux et Concepts Fondamentaux de la Responsabilité Administrative’ Fascicule 700, 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif, para. 90; CG Stahl's conclusions in CE 29 June 1997, Theux, RFDA 1998.82, 87.

(533) CE 5 Apr. 1991, Société Européenne de Location [1991] Rec 120. In a different area see CE 7 Apr.1967, Gardette, Req 65187.

(534) See, e.g., Watt v Hertfordshire CC [1954] 1 All ER 141; Barrett [1999] 3 All ER 193, 212 and 230.

(535) CE 1 Mar. 1974, Mourat [1974] Rec 161; CE 29 Dec. 1978, Darmont [1978] Rec 542. See S. Rials, Le Juge Administratif Français et la Technique du Standard (Paris, 1980), para. 238 ; L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 49–53 .

(536) CE 10 Apr. 1974, Société Ricordel, Req 877A5. See also CE 19 Nov. 1975, Ramonville [1975] Rec 578; CE 25 Sept. 1970, Tesson [1970] Rec 540.

(537) CE 27 Jan. 1988, Giraud [1988] Rec 39. A translation of this case may be found in the Appendix.

(538) CE 25 Oct. 1985, Poinsignon, Req 39288; CE 16 June 1989, Association ‘Le Ski Alpin Murois’ [1989] Rec 141; CE 7 Apr. 1967, Gardette, Req 65187. See C. Schaegis, Progrès Scientifique et Responsabilité Administrative (Paris, 1998) 48 .

(539) Law of 20 Aug. 1881, Art. 10, cited by L. Richer, La Faute du Service Public dans la Jurisprudence du Conseil d'Etat (Paris, 1978) 51 .

(540) Craig, 544.

(541) Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 952 (Lord Hoffmann).

(542) Knight v Home Office [1990] 3 All ER 237, 243. See also Walker v Northumberland CC [1995] 1 All ER 737.

(543) For an excellent comparative study of omissions in private law see J. Kortmann, ‘Liability for Nonfeasance: a Comparative Study’ (2001) 2 Oxford U Comparative L Forum 1 .

(544) See, e.g., Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd [1987] AC 241, 271.

(545) e.g. Van Oppen v Clerk to the Bedford Charity Trustees [1990] 1 WLR 235 (teacher and pupil).

(546) Dorset Yacht v Home Office [1970] AC 1004.

(547) Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923. See also the restrictive cases concerning the professional rescue services: Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire CC [1997] QB 1004; OLL Ltd v Secretary of State for Transport [1997] 3 All ER 897. But a more liberal approach may be discerned in a recent case concerning the ambulance service: Kent v Griffiths [2001] QB 36.

(548) Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 953. Lord Hoffmann held that an action could be based on the doctrine of general reliance, but only in restricted circumstances: Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 953–5.

(549) Lord Hutton in Barrett distinguished Stovin v Wise on the basis that the facts of Barrett concerned the positive exercise of statutory duties and powers (see [2001] 2 AC 550, 586). Note, however, that in a recent case, Lamer v Solihull MBC [2001] RTR 32, the Court of Appeal has taken a seemingly less rigorous approach than that advocated by Lord Hoffmann in Stovin v Wise: see n. 175 above.

(550) 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, (Paris, 1988) para. 204 ; Markesinis, Auby et al., 57. See, e.g., CE 20 Oct. 1972, Marabout [1972] Rec 664.

(551) C. Harlow, ‘Fault Liability in French and English Public Law’ (1976) 39 MLR 516, 524 .

(552) CE 29 Dec. 1993, Soldaini, JCP 1994.II.22322.

(553) M. Paillet, ‘Faute de Service: Notion’ Fascicule 818 (1993, updated 1994), 8, Juris-Classeur Administratif, paras. 113–115.

(554) CE 23 Nov. 1979, he Meillour [1979] Rec 431 (two years' delay).

(555) CE 10 June 1988, Parize-Farin, RDP 1989.551; CE 29 Dec. 1989, Soussan, RDP 1990.1180. But see the cases of liability for lawfully caused loss: Chap. 5, sect. 2.2.3.

(556) CE 21 Mar. 1975, Andrieux [1975] Rec 215.

(557) CE 14 Nov. 1973, Zanzi [1973] Rec 645.

(558) See also for a general critique of these policy considerations: Markesinis, Auby et al.; R. Bsagshaw, ‘The Duties of Care of Emergency Service Providers’ [1999] LMCLQ 71; P. Craig and D. Fairgrieve, ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ [1999] PL 626.

(559) X (Minors) v Bedfordshire CC [1995] 2 AC 633, 750.

(560) See n. 533 above.

(561) See Barrett [2001] 2 AC 550, 591; Phelps [2001] 2 AC 619, 655 and 672.

(562) See the cases cited at n. 45 above.

(563) Dorset Yacht v Rome Office [1970] AC 1004, 1032–33; Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004, 1043–4; Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 255, 276–7; Gibson v Chief Constable Strathclyde Police 1999 SC 420, 436; Darker v Chief Constable of West Midlands [2001] 1 AC 435, 452.

(564) [2001] 2 AC 550, 568 and 589.

(565) [2001] 2 AC 619, at 672. See also Lord Slynn's judgment at 655.

(566) See academic critique of this policy concern: A. Bartlett and J. Waite, ‘Searching for Duties of Care: The Fire Brigade Cases’ (1998) 14 Const LJ 20, 29 ; P. Cane, Tort Law and Economic Interests (2nd edn, Oxford, 1996) 241–3 ; Markesinis, Auby et al., 78–81; A. Mason, ‘Negligence and the Liability of Public Authorities’ (1998) 2 Edinburgh L Rev 3, 21 ; J. Stapleton, ‘Duty of Care: Peripheral Parties and Alternative Opportunities for Deterrence’ (1995) 111 LQR 301, 314 ; J. Wright, ‘Local Authorities, the Duty of Care and the European Convention on Human Rights’ (1998) 18 OJLS 1, 10–11 .

(567) Although in a US context, D. Dewees, D. Duff and M. Trebilcock argue that in the medical sphere ‘empirical evidence suggests that the civil liability system has had a significant impact on medical practice, such as increased record keeping, increased discussion with patients about treatment risks, referrals to other health care professionals, and increased diagnostic testing’, Exploring the Domain of Accident Law (New York, 1996) 417. The authors of a recent empirical study, however, conducted in England in order to determine the effects of the recognition of a duty of care upon the fire services concluded (with considerable caution) that ‘the imposition of liability has not led to widespread defensive fire-fighting’: J. Hartshorne, N. Smith, and R. Everton, ‘Caparo Under Fire: A Study into the Effects upon the Fire Service of Liability in Negligence’ (2000) 63 MLR 502, 521 .

(568) Skinner v Secretary of State for Transport, The Times, 3 Jan. 1994.

(569) Capital & Counties Plc v Hampshire County Council [1997] QB 1004.

(570) See Attorney-General v Prince and Gardner [1998] 1 NZLR 262, 284–5.

(571) See text accompanying n. 463 above.

(572) J. Waline, ‘L'Evolution de la Responsabilité Extra-Contractuelle des Personnes Publique’ in Conseil d'Etat: Rapport Public 1994, EDCE 1994.460. See also L. Dubouis, ‘Le Juge Administratif, le Malade et le Médecin’ in Mélanges Offerts à Marcel Waline (Paris, 1974), 389, 404 .

(573) Chapus, para. 1463. See also Conseil d'Etat, Rapport Public 1998, EDCE 1998.244.

(574) The suitability of ombudsmen schemes as an alternative to tort actions will be investigated in depth in Chap. 8. We will thus restrict ourselves to an analysis of public law remedies at this stage.

(575) X (Minors) [1995] 2 AC 633, 751, 762.

(576) W v Home Office [1997] Imm. AR 302; H v Norfolk County Council [1997] 1 FLR 384. See also Jones v Department of Employment [1989] QB 1, 22 for the influence of the existence of a statutory right of appeal.

(577) [2001] 2 AC 550, 568.

(578) Ibid., 589.

(579) R. Bagshaw, ‘The Duties of Care of Emergency Service Providers’ [1999] LMCLQ 71, 86.

(580) See K. Standley, ‘No Duty of Care to Children in Care’ (1997) 9 CFLQ 409 . This point was recognized by Lord Clyde in Phelps: ‘it may only be through a claim for damages at common law that compensation for the damage done to the child may be secured for the past as well as the future’, [2001] 2 AC 619, 672.

(581) See Chap 8, sect. 2.

(582) Or if he or she did not make use of any legal remedy which could have mitigated the damages: § 839 III BGB.

(583) § 839 I 2 BGB. For an in-depth Anglo-German comparison see R. Surma, ‘A Comparative Study of the English and German Judicial Approach to the Liability of Public Bodies in Negligence’ in D. Fairgrieve, M. Andenas, and J. Bell, Tort Liability of Public Authorities in Comparative Perspective (London, 2002) .

(584) Generally see Markesinis, Auby et al., 64–5.

(585) Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923, 952 (Lord Hoffmann).

(586) In an address entitled ‘The X Case: Implications for Education Lawyers’ (Education Law Association, The Cavendish Conference Centre, 14 Nov. 1996).

(587) Gaisford v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, The Times, 19 July 1996; Ryeford Homes Ltd v Sevenoaks District Council [1989] 2 EGLR 281.

(588) See Rougier J at first instance in one of the Capital & Counties cases: John Munroe v London Fire Authority [1996] 3 WLR 988, 1003.

(589) For contrasting views see Lord Hoffmann, ‘Human Rights and the House of Lords’ (1999) 62 MLR 159 ; Lord Bingham's judgment in M v Newham LBC [1995] 2 AC 633, 663; Lord Browne-Wilkinson's extrajudicial address, entitled ‘The X Case: Implications for Education Lawyers’ (Education Law Association, The Cavendish Conference Centre, 14 Nov. 1996).

(590) See, e.g., F. Furedi, Courting Mistrust (London, 1999) ; P. Toynbee, ‘A culture of compensation makes victims of us all’, Guardian, Wednesday 21 Apr. 1999.

(591) C. Bréchon-Moulènes, Les Régimes Législates de Responsabilité Publique (Paris, 1974) 480 . She has argued that this is shown by judicial interpretation of various legislation governing governmental liability: 477–80.

(592) For further analysis of this point see Chap. 7, sect. 6.1.

(593) CE 29 Mar. 2000, Assistance Publique-Hopitaux de Paris, RFDA 2000.850, 854.

(594) This falls within the case law on presumptions of fault: see n. 497 above.

(595) CAA Bordeaux, 2 Feb. 1998, Consorts Fraticiola, RDP 1998.579, 584.

(596) G. Vedel, Droit Administratif (2nd edn, Paris, 1961) 281 . See p. 33 above. See also the arguments raised against the recovery of damages for pretium affectionis—in particular concerning the potential frequency and extent of such claims. CG Delevalle dismissed these public finance concerns as irrelevant: TA Lille 28 Feb. 1958, D.1958 Jurisprudence 216, and Luce argued that public bodies could be insured against these types of claims, and that the public purse was large enough to incorporate any increased costs: G. P. Luce, ‘La Question du Préjudice Moral dans la Jurisprudence Administrative’, JCP 1961.1.1645. See further p. 212 below.

(597) See also Bingham LJ's dissenting judgment in M v Newham LBC [1995] 2 AC 633, 667: ‘[s]ave in clear cases, it is not for the courts to decide how public money is best spent nor to balance the risk that money will be wasted on litigation against the hope that the possibility of suit may contribute towards the maintenance of the highest standards’.

(598) First Report of the Select Committee on the PCA, Maladministration and Redress (1994–1995, HC 112) para. 70.

(599) Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [1999] 1 WLR 500 at 503, 516.

(600) Phelps [2001] 2 AC 619, 667.

(601) Ibid., 672.

(602) Ibid., 667. See also the comments of Lord Slynn at 655.

(603) B. Markesinis, ‘Plaintiff's Tort Law or Defendant's Tort Law? Is the House of Lords Moving Towards a Synthesis?’ (2001) 9 Torts LJ 168, 172–3 .

(604) A. Mason, ‘Negligence and the Liability of Public Authorities’ (1998) 2 ELR 3, 10–11 .

(605) Perrett v Collins [1998] 2 Lloyd's Rep. 255, 276–7.

Copyright © 2015. All rights reserved.

• Privacy policy and legal notice

• Credits

• Log out

Access brought to you by: Higher School of Economics

About the Index