• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Discuss in what circumstances the action for breach of statutory duty is available. Do you agree that it is difficult to identify any intelligible principles in this area?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

"[S]uch is the difficulty of identifying any intelligible principles in this area [breach of statutory duty] that Lord Denning has remarked - perhaps not entirely in jest - that '[t]he dividing line between the pro-cases and the contra-cases is so blurred and so ill-defined that you might as well toss a coin to decide it' (Ex parte Island Records Ltd [1978] 1 Ch.122 at 135)." Discuss in what circumstances the action for breach of statutory duty is available. Do you agree that it is difficult to identify any intelligible principles in this area? "The common law principle of delictual liability may be supplemented or supplanted by delictual liability for breach of a statutory duty"1. In recent times the volume of legislation emanating from parliament has been ever increasing and so the area of statutory liability is of real importance and relevance to a vast number of people especially in terms of employment and safety within employment. As is evident from the name, statutory duties are different from the common law duties but an action for the breach of a statutory duty may be raised in conjunction with, but distinct of that of a breach of duty at common law as stated by Lord Wright2 who said "A claim for damages for breach of a statutory duty....may stand or fall independently of negligence". The rationale behind that being, that it may be the case that a different standard of care is required for a successful action for breach of statutory duty as opposed to that required for a successful action raised under the common law. ...read more.

Middle

As mentioned previously that where a statute expresses one way or another whether civil liability arises for a breach there is no problem but where a statute is silent it is the job of the courts to interpret the intention of parliament. In cases where the statute is silent there are no fixed rules or mechanisms to be adhered to ascertain the intention of parliament but there is a presumption that where a statute sets out a specific means of enforcement of the statutory duty then Parliament did not intend there to be an additional remedy of an action for breach of statutory duty. In other words if the statute dictates that there should be a fine imposed or some other sort of remedy for the breach of a statutory duty then it is presumed that there shall be no action for the breach of the duty. The case of Atkinson v Gateshead Waterworks14 is a good illustration of this presumption. In this case a civil action for breach of statutory duty failed because the statute relevant to the circumstances carried the penalty of a £10 fine for the breach and thus this excluded the possibility of a civil action. The case of Cutler is once again relevant for due to the fact that the statutory breach carried with it a criminal penalty and so a civil action was not possible. It is important to note however that the aforementioned presumption has two exceptions set out by Lord Diplock in Lonrho Ltd v Shell Petroleum Co15. ...read more.

Conclusion

The defence of volenti non fit injuria is generally excluded in cases of alleged breach of statutory duty in an employment context as it is not generally thought that the employee has any real freedom of choice as he is working under economic pressure23. It is plausible, in all be it limited circumstances that the defence of volenti will be available to a defender and a prime example of this can be seen the case of ICI v Shatwell24. In general however, the defence is normally excluded as it would be contrary to public policy to allow individuals to consent to risks against which statute has provided protection, demonstrated in the case of Wheeler v New Merton Board Mills Ltd25. It has become manifestly clear to myself that this area of law [breach of statutory duty] poses, all be it to different degrees, problems to academics and students alike, and maybe to a certain extent the courts, in not so much understanding but codifying the, if any, fundamental principles related to it. Like many areas of law, where there is a rule or presumption, there is an exception to that rule or presumption and breach of statutory duty is no different, an in my opinion provides a clear example of where there is a rule, there is an exception. This apparent lack of intelligible principles carries with it a great degree of uncertainty for those contemplating raising an action for breach of statutory duty due to the fact that a lot of the time it is the discretion of the court that will ultimately decide the fate of the case. Word Count: 2634. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Tort Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Tort Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    'The existence of a duty of care is ultimately a question of policy'. Discuss.

    4 star(s)

    negligent in failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the teacher did not harm them and in not arresting him earlier than was attempted. An application by the Metropolitan Police to strike out the claim as disclosing no cause of action was successful before the Court of Appeal, the

  2. Tortious liability arises from the breach of duty primarily fixed by law; such duty ...

    is appropriate to the duty owed he would be measured according to the objective standard of the "reasonable man"1. Therefore it can be said that a reasonable man would have foreseen the risk of injury to Crispin. Crispin's chair was deliberately removed by his colleagues as he was about to sit down.

  1. A Critical Examination of the Concept of Breach of Duty of Care

    When the law imposes a duty on an officer, whether by common law or statute, and he neglects to perform it, he may be held accountable for such neglect and in some cases such neglect will amount to a forfeiture of the office.

  2. Economic loss and the law of negligence in delict.

    and further ingredients are required to establish the levels of proximity in a relationship. One possibility that was highlighted was that the beneficiary could be said to have had an element of "reliance" on the solicitor and this was in tune with the Hedley Byrne principle of "assumption of responsibility" and "reliance."

  1. Vicarious Liability.

    The plaintiffs paid the cinema owners for the damages caused by the fire and sought to recover from the defendants. It was held that the plaintiffs had remained liable for the damage caused by the independent contractor because the task involved was extra hazardous.

  2. Is there a Duty of Care?

    However simple this concept may seem, there have been cases where it has been difficult to apply.19 The courts will only usually find that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care not to omit if there was a "special relationship" between them.20 The case involving Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire21 is a good example of this.

  1. To successfully pursue a claim in the Tort of negligence there are three elements ...

    the damage."9 Causation in law is also referred to as remoteness of damage. The claimant must prove that the damage suffered is not too remote a consequence of the defendant's negligent act. The negligent act by the defendant must be linked by a casual chain to the damage suffered by the claimant.

  2. Duty of Care.

    - An occupier's control of land may give rise to an affirmative duty in relation to the behavior of visitors Cunningham v Reading Football Club Ltd [1992] The defendants were held liable for injuries inflicted by football hooligans who broke pieces of concrete off the structure of the premises for use as missiles.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work