Public authorities and the state

Liability of public authorities

Public authorities can include:

•
central government
•
police and emergency services
•
local authorities
•
local education authorities
•
housing authorities
•
the Ministry of Defence (MOD)
•
NHS bodies

Public authorities undertake a number of public functions which can give rise to public liability. When services are provided to members of the public, such as maintaining a highway, the public authority owes the public a duty of care.

The public authority can also be exposed to a private liability, for example when employing an individual.

Public authorities therefore owe both a private and public liability. By way of example, if a public authority breaches health and safety regulations at its premises and one of its employees is injured as a result, then, at the material time, it was carrying out what was essentially a private, rather than public, act. In these circumstances, although the defendant is a public authority, its status as such is unlikely to be of any real significance to the conduct of the claim. The cause of action will be the same as for a private body.

For

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest PI & Clinical Negligence News

Claim for credit hire not defeated by lack of MOT (Ali v HSF Logistics Polska Sp ZOO)

Personal injury and clinical negligence analysis: This is the first time the Court of Appeal has considered the situation where credit hire charges are claimed following a road traffic collision damaging the claimant’s vehicle, yet the claimant’s damaged vehicle did not hold a valid MOT certificate at the time of the collision. Previous County Court decisions, and one Irish High Court decision, have held that such credit hire claims are unrecoverable based on illegality and/or causation arguments. In a rare second appeal, the Court of Appeal took a different view to the lower courts and allowed the credit hire charges to be recovered. It considered that the fact that the car did not have a valid MOT certificate did not prevent damages being recovered for loss of use. Further, it would be disproportionate to bar the claim on the grounds of illegality. Written by Jasmine Murphy, barrister, at Gatehouse Chambers.

ACSO criticises government's response to medical reporting process consultation

The Association of Consumer Support Organisations (ACSO) has expressed concern over the government's protracted response to the 2023 consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. The government plans to implement inflationary increases to fixed costs medical reports in 2025, marking an 11-year gap since fees were last set in 2014. ACSO highlights the detrimental impact on the medico-legal sector, noting a significant decrease in medical reporting organisations due to commercial challenges. The organisation criticises the inconsistency in reviewing fixed fees across civil justice, emphasising the resulting difficulties for firms in planning and investment. ACSO calls for the ongoing motor insurance taskforce to address these issues and consider the imbalance between defendant insurers and consumer representatives created by fixed costs.

Minutes of the CPR Committee meeting—1 November 2024

The minutes of the CPR Committee (CPRC) meeting of 1 November 2024 (conducted in a hybrid format at The Rolls Building (Royal Courts of Justice) and via video conference) cover a number of issues including the Law Commission consultation on the law of contempt, Closed Material Procedure, Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the outcome of the Workplace Claims consultation and costs budgeting light.

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—19 December 2024

This week's edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes confirmation from the Court Funds Office on a further reduction in interest rates for basic and special accounts, and details of the MOJ’s response to a consultation on revisions to the medical reporting process for road traffic accident claims. We consider a decision that found the Court of Protection did have jurisdiction to determine a dispute over the claimant’s deputy’s release from reverse indemnity undertakings and a clinical negligence case where anonymity was refused as materials already in the public domain about the claimant’s health rendered any attempt at anonymisation futile and unjustified. We also bring you our usual roundup of other news, cases and New Law Journal articles of interest.

View PI & Clinical Negligence by content type :

News