Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:04:24.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Extending the liability of the state in damages

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Merris Amos
Merris Amos*
Affiliation:
University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is still the case in English law that invalid administrative action alone gives rise to no claim for damages. Individuals suffering loss as a result of invalid administrative action may remain uncompensated unless they have a private law remedy against the public body such as a claim in tort or contract. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the passage of the Human Rights Act 1998 and developments in Community damages law have greatly increased the liability of public bodies in damages. However, the extension of liability in these areas raises questions as to whether it is satisfactory or even possible for the prohibition on damages for invalid administrative action to be maintained given the anomalies that have and will be created. Statutory reform, drawing on Community law, the Human Rights Act and jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, may go some way towards resolving existing anomalies and providing individuals with an adequate, alternative means of obtaining redress.

Type
Research Article
Information
Legal Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 1 , March 2001 , pp. 1 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © Society of Legal Scholars 2001

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hoffmann-La Roche v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1975) AC 295 at 359, per Lord Wilberforce. For the purposes of this article ‘invalid administrative action’ is defined as administrative action or omission tainted by illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety which is thereby liable to be declared illegal, quashed or held void or voidable. See further Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374 at 410–411, per Lord Diplock.

2. X (minors) Bedfordshire County Council (1995) 2 AC 633 at 749, per Lord Browne – Wilkinson.

3. Ibid.

4. Cane, P An Introduction to Administrative Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 3rd edn, 1996) p 78 Google Scholar.

5. On 2 October 2000.

6. (1999) Times, 19 May, CA.

7. Francovich and Bonifaci v Italy (1991) ECR I-5357; Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany and R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (1996) ECR I-1029; R v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications plc (1996) ECR I-1631; Denkavit Internationaal v Bundesamt fur Finanzen (1996) ECR I-5063; Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany (1996) ECR I-4845; R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex p Hedley Lomas (1996) ECR I-2553. For analysis see: Craig, P P ‘Once More Unto the Breach: The Community, The State and Damages Liability’ (1997) 113 LQR 67 Google Scholar; Toner, H ‘State Liability After Factortame’ (1997) 17 YEL 165 Google Scholar; Steiner, J ‘The Limits of State Liability for Breach of European Community Law’ (1998) EPL 69 Google Scholar.

8. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 5) (1997) EuLR 475 at 506.

9. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 5) (1997) EuLR 475 at 531, upheld by the Court of Appeal in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 5) (1998) EuLR 456 and by the House of Lords in R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (No 5) (1999) 3 WLR 1062. See further N P Gravells ‘Part II of the Merchant Shipping Act 1988: A sufficiently serious breach of European Community Law?’ (1998) PL 8; T de la Mare ‘Bringing a Francovich claim in English Courts’ (1997) JR 143.

10. Bourgoin v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1986) QB 716.

11. Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board (1984) AC 130 at 141, per Lord Diplock.

12. See eg R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Gallagher (1996) 2 CMLR 951; Secretary of State for Employment v Mann (1997) ICR 209; Bowden v South West Water Services Ltd (1998) EnvLR D15; R v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex p Lay and Gage (1998) COD 387; R v Department of Social Security, ex p Scullion (25 March 1998, unreported, DC); Three Rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No 3) (2000) 2 WLR 15.

13. Francovich & Bonifaci v Italy (1991) ECR 1–5357; Dillenkofer v Germany (1996) ECR I-4845.

14. R v HM Treasury, ex p British Telecommunications plc (1996) ECR I-1631; Denkavit International v Bundesamt für Finanzen (1996) ECR I-5063.

15. Brasserie du Pěcheur SA v Germany, R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (1996) ECR I-1029.

16. R v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food, ex p Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd (1996) ECR I-2553.

17. Brasserie du Pecheur SA v Germany and R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (1996) ECR I-1029 at paras 55-57. See also R v HM Treasury, exp British Telecommunications plc (1996) ECR 1-1 631; Denkavit Internationaal v Bundesamt fur Finanzen (1996) ECR 1-5063; Dillenkofer and others v Federal Republic of Germany (1996) ECR 1-4845; R v Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, exp Hedley Lomas (1996) ECR I-2553.

18. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (No 5) (1998) EuLR 456 at 475.

19. Bawden v South West Water Services Ltd (1998) EnvLR D15.

20. (1996) 2 CMLR 951.

21. R v Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. ex p p Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd ECR I-2553.

22. Ibid at para 25.

23. Ibid at para 27.

24. Ibid at paras 28–29.

25. 31 July 1989, unreported, DC.

26. Otton J also found that the council had acted irrationally and that each applicant had a legitimate expectation that a licence would be issued as they had met the criteria outlined in a letter from the council.

27. R v Knowslev Metropolitan Borough Council, ex p Maguire (1992) Times, 26 June, DC, per Schiemann J.

28. R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p National and Local Government Officers’ Association (1993) 5 Admin LR 785 at 799, per Neill LJ. For further examples see: R v Goldstein (1983) 1 WLR 151; R v Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, exp Roberts (1991) 1 CMLR 555; Thomas adjudication Officer (1991) 2 QB 164; Stoke on Trent CC v B & Q plc (1991) 1 Ch 48; R v Secretary of State for Employment, ex p Equal Opportunities Commission (1993) I WLR 872; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex p Adam (1995) All ER (EC) 177.

29. (1998) 3 WLR 1260.

30. (1998) QB 477.

31. (1996) QB 197.

32. Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223; Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tumeside Metropolitan Borough Council (1977) AC 1014; Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) AC 374; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department exp Brind (1991) 1 AC 696.

33. R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, exp Brind (1991) 1 AC 696 at 751, 759 and 762. See further Jowell, J ‘Is Proportionality an Alien Concept?’ (1996) EPL 401 Google Scholar; de Búrca, G ‘Proportionality and Wednesbury Unreasonableness: The Influence of European Legal Concepts on UK Law’ (1997) EPL 561 Google Scholar.

34. R v Chief Constable of Sussex, exp International Trader's Ferry Ltd (1998) 3 WLR 1260 at 1277, per Lord Slynn and at 1288, per Lord Cooke: ‘on the particular facts of this case the European concepts of proportionality and margin of appreciation produce the same result as what are commonly called Wednesbury principles.’ See also the judgment of Laws J in R v Secretary of State, for the Environment, exp Oldham Metropolitan BC (1996) Times, 16 December, DC.

35. Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill Cm 3782 (London: TSO, 1997) p 1.

36. See generally ME Amos ‘Damages for Breach of the Human Rights Act 1998’ (1999) 2 EHRLR 178.

37. References to ‘court’ include tribunal, Human Rights Act 1998, s 8(5).

38. Hansard, HL Vol 582, col 1232, 3 November 1997, Lord Chancellor.

39. Hansard, HL Vol 585, col 389, 29 January 1998, Lord Chancellor.

40. Section 8(1).

41. Section 24(1).

42. Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v Kodellas (1989) 60 DLR (4th) 143 at 162, per Bayda CJS.

43. Article 13: ‘Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation was committed by persons acting in an official capacity.’

44. See Hansard, HL Vol 583, col 475, 18 November 1997, Lord Chancellor.

45. Clerk & Lindsell on Torrs (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 17th edn, 1995) pp 229–232.

46. See generally Mowbray, A R ‘The European Court of Human Rights' Approach to Just Satisfaction’ (1997) PL 647 Google Scholar; Hams, D J, O'Boyle, M and Warbrick, C Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (London: Butterworths, 1995) pp 682–688 Google Scholar; Amos, above n 36.

47. Eg Papamichalopoulos v Greece (1996) 21 EHRR 439 at para 38.

48. Eg Vacher v France (1997) 24 EHRR 482.

49. Eg Saunders v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 3 13; Chahal v UK (1997) 23 EHRR 413; and Bowman v UK (1998) 26 EHRR 1.

50. Aydin v Turkey (1998) 25 EHRR 251.

51. Keegan v Ireland (1994) 18 EHRR 342.

52. Restrictions must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. See eg Handyside v UK (1976) 1 EHRR 737 at para 49.

53. The first sentence of art 6(1): ‘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.’ For commentary see Harris, O'Boyle and Warbrick, above n 46 at pp 163–273.

54. (1995) 20 EHRR 205.

55. Ibid, para 80.

56. Ibid.

57. Only with respect to Mrs McMichael, as the child was born out of wedlock. However, a violation of art 8 was found with respect to both applicants.

58. Paragraph 103.

59. (1990) 12 EHRR 266 at para 46. This test was applied in a series of cases brought against the United Kingdom concerning court martial procedure. See, inter aha, Findlay v United Kingdom (1997) 24 EHRR 221.

60. R v Gough (1993) AC 646.

61. Albert and Le Compte v Belgium (1983) 5 EHRR 533.

62. Pudas v Sweden (1988) 10 EHRR 380.

63. Feldbrugge v Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 425; Deumeland v Germany (1986) 8 EHRR 448.

64. P v UK (1987) 54 DR 211.

65. X v France (1983) 32 DR 266.

66. See eg Vacher v France 1(1997) 24 EHRR 482; Findlay v UK (1997) 24 EHRR 221; and Schmautzer v Austria (1996) 21 EHRR 511 at para 44.

67. (1997) 23 EHRR 313.

68. Paragraph 86.

69. See eg Saunders v United Kingdom (1997) 23 EHRR 313.

70. Article 5(5): ‘Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation.’

71. Woolf, Lord and Jowell, J Judicial Review of Administrative Action (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 5th edn, 1995) p 759 Google Scholar.

72. Cullen v Morris (1819) 2 Stark 577 at 587; Bourgoin SA v Ministry, of Agriculture Fisheries and Food (1986) QB 716 at 790, per Nourse LJ; Rowling v Takaro Properties Ltd (1988) AC 473 at 502, per Lord Keith; X v Bedfordshire County Council (1995) 2 AC 633 at 749–751, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson; Stovin v Wise (1996) AC 923 at 958, per Lord Hoffmann.

73. Administrative Justice, Some Necessary Reforms, Report of the Committee of the JUSTICE-All Souls Review of Administrative Law in the United Kingdom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988) pp 361 and 364. The committee did not extend this recommendation to the decisions of courts and tribunals (p 363).

74. Woolf, H Protection of the Public – A New Challenge (London: Stevens & Sons, 1990) pp 57–58 Google Scholar.

75. Craig, P P Administrative Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 4th edn, 1999) p 904 Google Scholar. See further C Emery ‘JUSTICE-All Souls: Farewell to ‘Public Law’?’ (1988) PL 503; C Harlow ‘The JUSTICE/A11 Souls Review: Don Quixote to the Rescue?’ (1990) 10 OJLS 85.

76. See Craig, above n 7, p 90.

77. Subsection 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

78. Subsection 8(3) of the Human Rights Act 1998.

79. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd (No 5) (1997) EuLR 475 at 531.

80. Cane, above n 4, p 74.

81. Craig, above n 7, p 89. See also Craig, P P ‘The Impact of Community Law on Domestic Public Law’ in Leyland, and Woods, (eds) Administrative Law Facing the Future: Old Constraints and New Horizons (London: Blackstone Press, 1997) p 271 Google Scholar; Craig, above n 75, p 905.

82. Above n 7, p 90.

83. Woolf and Jowell, above n 71, p 791. See also B C Gould, ‘Damages as a Remedy in Administrative Law’ (1972) 5 NZULR 105 Google Scholar; Harlow, C ‘Fault Liability in Public Law’ (1976) 39 MLR 516 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; McBride, J ‘Damages as a Remedy for Unlawful Administrative Action’ (1979) CLJ 323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Craig, P P ‘Compensation in Public Law’ (1980) 96 LQR 413 Google Scholar; Harlow, C Compensation and Government Torts (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1982)Google Scholar.

84. (1975) AC 295.

85. (1992) Times, 26 June.

86. (1993) AC 70.

87. Lord Goff and Lord Slynn were willing to extend this to a wider range of cases such as where the authority has misconstrued a statute or regulation, at 177 and 205 respectively.

88. At 177.

89. R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame (No 5) (1998) EuLR 456 at 469.

90. Ibid.

91. (1995) 2 AC 633 at 749–751, 762, per Lord Browne-Wilkinson.

92. (1996) AC 923 at 952, 958, per Lord Hoffmann.

93. But see Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council (1999) 3 A11 ER 193; W v Essex County Council (2000) 2 WLR 601.

94. (1998) AC 188.

95. At 90. See generally T Weir ‘Governmental Liability’ (1989) PL 40; D Brodie ‘Public Authorities and the Duty of Care’ (1996) Jur Rev 127; Convery ‘Public or Private? Duty of Care in a Statutory Framework: Stovin v Wise in the House of Lords’ (1997) 60 MLR 559.

96. R v Ealing London Borough Council, ex p Parkinson (1996) 8 Admin LR 281.

97. Ibid at 287.

98. Ibid.

99. Hansard, HC Vol 312, col979, 20 May 1998.

100. Ibid.

101. Ibid.

102. Note that in 1990 the Liberal Democrats proposed that they would amend the law to enable those injured by maladministration to seek damages without having to prove negligence or malice. See ‘We the People…–Towards a Written Constitution’, Federal Green Paper No 13 (1990). See also The Constitution of the United Kingdom (London: Institute for Public Policy Research, 1991) art 118.1.3.

103. Application No 29392/95, 10 September 1999.

104. Application No 28945/95, 10 September 1999.

105. (1995) 2 AC 633.

106. Z v UK Application No 29392/95, 10 September 1999 at para 114; T P and K M v UK Application No 28945/95, 10 September 1999 at para 91. See also Osman v UK (1999) Crim LR 82.

107. Z v UK at para 115; T P and K M v UK at para 92.

108. It is important to note that the applicants' claims only concern the issue of striking out. In two recent cases the House of Lords has determined that claims in negligence brought against local authorities should not be struck out without investigation of the facts. However, it is possible that on further investigation of the facts, a duty of care will not be imposed or, if imposed, a breach will not be found. See Barrety v Enfield London Borough Council (1993) 3 All ER 193 and W v Essex County Council (2000) 2 WLR 601. For a recent analysis see P P Craig and D Fairgrieve ‘Barrett, Negligence and Discretionary Powers’ (1999) PL 626.