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 Public Law News

Institute for Government outlines UK-EU reset agreement from first summit

The Institute for Government has reported that the UK and EU has reached initial agreements at their first summit in London on 19 May 2025. The agreement includes extending fishing arrangements to 2038, establishing a new Security and Defence Partnership and exploring dynamic regulatory alignment in specific sectors. While not constituting final legal texts, the agreements set framework for future negotiations. The Cabinet Office, led by Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds, will oversee implementation, with most areas requiring formal EU Commission negotiating mandates before finalisation. In areas of dynamic alignment, the UK would receive decision-shaping input, with the European Court of Justice remaining the authority on EU law interpretation.

State aid—weekly round-up 28 May 2025

A round-up of key developments on State aid, first reported by the Lexis+ Competition team. This update covers the period 21–27 May 2025.

No substantive legitimate expectation from an oral assurance (R (Grantchester PC) v Greater Cambridge Partnership)

Public Law analysis: The High Court found that an alleged oral assurance given by a local councillor in an informal meeting with Grantchester residents did not give rise to a legitimate expectation that a proposed greenway would not go through Grantchester village if Grantchester residents did not support it. The court held that for a substantive legitimate expectation (effectively a right of veto by villagers) to arise from an oral statement, any such statement must contain ‘a particularly clear and unequivocal promise’. Given the inconclusiveness of oral evidence of what was in fact said, Mrs Justice Lieven concluded that it was unlikely that the local councillor would have said anything that could amount to a binding commitment. The court’s approach in this case illustrates the forensic difficulty in setting out to prove the existence of a sufficiently clear and unambiguous oral promise capable of giving rise to a legitimate expectation. Written by Tetyana Nesterchuk, barrister at Fountain Court Chambers.

Council of Europe responds to joint letter challenging ECtHR

The Secretary General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, has issued a response to the 22 May 2025 joint letter issued by nine Member States which criticises the role and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The joint letter was initiated by Denmark and Italy and includes Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The letter addresses concerns regarding the ECtHR’s interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in relation to migration. In his responding statement Berset affirms that the Court, established by the Member States, must remain independent and immune to political pressure in order to continue protecting fundamental rights effectively. The statement also highlights the Court’s crucial role in upholding the Convention’s principles, especially amid the challenges posed by the ongoing Russian war of aggression against Ukraine.