Sentences with phrase «common law duty of care»

[46] What is clear, however, based on s. 2 of the Act, is that there is no general common law duty of care, based on proximity principles, owed by an adjacent property owner or tenant in respect of sidewalks that abut that person's property.

There's also health and safety legislation such as the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 which, whilst not creating rights for employees to sue their employer, affect and influence the common law duty of care.

a personal injury claim for breach of the employer's common law duty of care (mainly under the law of negligence);

The High Court held, applying Wyatt v Hillingdon London Borough Council (1978) 76 LGR 727, that a council's failure to comply with its statutory duty to provide domiciliary care services under s 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 can not amount to breach of a common law duty of care.

The court addressed the question as to whether the common law duties of care had been abolished due to the Act by adopting the following statement in Bongiardina,

The question for the court was: did the secretary of state owe any common law duty of care to Rowley or her children?

Lord Justice Dyson considered this in the light of the test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2, [1990] 1 All ER 568, especially the third test: was it just and reasonable to impose a common law duty of care on the secretary of state under the Child Support Act 1991 (CSA 1991)?

Assessing fault after a car accident involves applying the common law duties of care.

The Supreme Court has made a significant decision on the question of the scope of the common law duty of care owed by police when their activities lead to injuries being sustained by members of the public.

There is, therefore, no common law duty of care.

In a situation where the defendant is acting in pursuance of functions under a statute, it is necessary to consider a construction of the Act itself, alongside the issues concerning the defendant's liability under the common law of negligence, in particular the primary question as to whether the common law duty of care arises.

Mitchell underlines the court's reluctance to impose a common law duty of care, says Kenneth Warner

The Court of Appeal dismisses Starbucks» appeal, finding it was open to the Trial Judge to conclude Starbucks was an occupier and no common law duty of care arises in the case.

With respect to the potential existence of a common law duty of care, the Court of Appeal refused to recognize a general common law duty of care owed by an adjacent property owner or tenant in respect of sidewalks abutting their property — «The only duty is the statutory duty that is owed by a person who meets the definition of occupier under the Act».

Lord Rodger continues this theme in East Berkshire «that there are cogent reasons of public policy for holding that no common law duty of care should be owed to the parents».

Judge Simmonds QC heard argument on the preliminary issues of: whether a breach of ICTA 1988, s 561 (2) by HMRC would give rise to a cause of action for damages; if so, whether HMRC was in breach of s 561 (2) as alleged by the claimant; whether HMRC owed a common law duty of care to the claimant to process the application with reasonable expedition; and if so, whether there had been a breach of that duty of care as alleged by the claimant.

«If the policy of the act is not to create a statutory liability to pay compensation, the same policy should ordinarily exclude the existence of a common law duty of care.»

Andrew Simmonds QC, sitting as deputy judge, held that although HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) was in breach of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA 1988) this did not give rise to a cause of action for damages; nor did HMRC owe a common law duty of care to tax payers.

Having held that there was no right to a private law claim, the judge then addressed the interrelationship between claims for breach of a statutory duty and for breach of a common law duty of care in a statutory context.

The court held that the listing agent, who also represented the buyer in a concurrent sale deal, did not owe the buyer a fiduciary duty regarding the purchase, but did owe the buyer a common law duty of care.