����Ӱ��

View the related practice notes about Breach of statutory duty

Breach of statutory duty and the overlap with the common law

On 1 October 2013, section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013 (ERRA 2013) re-wrote section 47 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). This fundamental shift in the law was restricted to the range of regulations covering the workplace, work equipment and work practices. In relation to accidents occurring at work from 1 October 2013, civil liability will no longer arise from a breach of statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. It was directed not only at the main ‘six pack’ regulations but also at those covering more specialist activities or sectors:‘Six pack’ regulations•Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, SI 1999/3242 (as amended by Management of Health and Safety at Work (Amendment) Regulations 2006)•Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992, SI 1992/3004•Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, SI 1998/2306•Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992, SI 1992/2966 (there have been further PPE regulations introduced in 2002 and 2018 but they are not relevant since...

Bringing a claim—private law claim for breach of statutory duty

What is a private law claim for breach of statutory duty?A private law claim for breach of statutory duty is a claim that:•the defendant was under a statutory duty to do something•that something was not done, and•the breach of duty resulted in damage to the claimantA claim for breach of statutory duty, if it gives rise to a cause of action in private law, will be possible against any entity that is subject to that duty, whether a public authority or a private body. One example of a statutory provision which gives rise to a private law action is section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980) which allows users of the highway to sue for a failure to maintain the highway.In addition, where a public authority acts in breach of a statutory duty, an individual who has been adversely affected may be entitled to bring a public law claim seeking judicial review of the authority’s actions.However, many statutory duties do not give rise to a cause of action...

View the related precedents about Breach of statutory duty

Claim against an employer on behalf of an employee who was attacked at work by a patient

Claim against an employer on behalf of an employee who was attacked at work by a patient IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT][OR] IN THE HIGH COURT CLAIM NO: Between [XX]        Claimant and [YY]        Defendant _____________________________________________________ PARTICULARS OF CLAIM ______________________________________________________ 1 At all material times the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as Healthcare Assistant. 2 On or about [insert date] the Claimant was working at the [insert details] Ward at the Defendant’s hospital which catered for service users with mental health issues. 3 The Claimant commenced his shift at [insert time] and was allocated to work for a particular service user (“[ZZ]”) providing constant observation. 4 During the course of his shift the Claimant asked [ZZ] if he wished to have something to eat or drink whereupon [ZZ] punched the Claimant in the face. As a result of the said attack the Claimant suffered personal injury, loss and damage. 5 The Claimant’s injury loss and damage were caused or contributed to by the negligence of the...

Defence alleging contributory negligence in occupier's liability claim

Defence alleging contributory negligence in occupier's liability claim [ In the High Court of Justice OR In the COUNTY COURT AT [insert] ] [ [Specify division] ] [ [Specify Specialist court] ] [ [Insert location] District Registry ] Claim No: Between [A B]        Claimant and [X Y]        Defendants ________________________________________________ Defence ________________________________________________ 1 For the purposes of this action only, it is admitted that the Claimant’s fall while using a stile was caused by the Defendant’s negligence and/or breach of statutory duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957. 2 It is admitted that the Claimant sustained some injury as a result of the accident but the Defendant is unable to admit the extent of that injury for lack of knowledge. 3 It is the Defendant’s case that the Claimant’s accident was caused or contributed to by the negligence of the Claimant. The Claimant was negligent in that [he OR she]: PARTICULARS OF NEGLIGENCE 3.1 failed to consider or chose to ignore that the stile was ‘poorly...

View the related q&as about Breach of statutory duty

What liability would an employer (term is used in the consultant appointment) have for personal injury to a consultant who was injured while carrying out professional services?

What liability would an employer (term is used in the consultant appointment) have for personal injury to a consultant who was injured while carrying out professional services? In general, an employer has both a common law and statutory duty to ensure the safety of their employees. See: Employer’s liability—overview and Practice Notes: The employer's duty of care and Key workplace health and safety regulations for PI lawyers. Since the commencement of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013, civil liability does not arise from a breach of statutory duty unless the relevant regulation provides for it. See Practice Note: Section 69 of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013. See also the Practice Notes in the Lexis+ UK Practical Guidance Personal Injury & Clinical Negligence subtopic: Employer's Liability

View the related News about Breach of statutory duty

Jurisdictional challenges from abroad and the duty of full and frank disclosure (Okuashvili and others v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco and others)

Dispute Resolution analysis: In Okuashvili v JSC Tbilisi Tobacco, the High Court heard a complex jurisdictional challenge in respect of two separate sets of proceedings brought against various individuals and companies located in or with a nexus to Georgia. The judgment, which resulted in the court ultimately declining jurisdiction over almost all of the claims against all but one defendant, provides a helpful summary of the law applicable to the granting of permission to serve out of the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and CPR 6.37. It also serves as a timely reminder to practitioners of the importance of compliance with the duty of full and frank disclosure which arises in the context of without notice applications such as an application for permission to serve a claim out of the jurisdiction, and of the factors the court will take into consideration when determining whether or not there has been valid service out of the jurisdiction. Written by Emily Lodge, senior associate at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan UK LLP.