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 claimant A claim for breach of statutory duty that creates a private law cause of action can be brought against any entity subject to that duty, whether a public authority or a private organisation. An example is section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 (HiA 1980), which enables highway users to sue for 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 in private law. Most claims against public authorities are

A personal injury claim based on a breach of a statutory duty may be possible against any entity that is subject to that duty whether a public authority or a private body. However, not many statutory provisions give rise to a cause of action in private law. The difficulty arises in determining which statutory provisions permit a claimant to pursue a claim for a breach of statutory duty. Statutory provision expressly permits claimants to bring a claim for breach of statutory duty Sometimes the legislation will make it plain that a failure to fulfil the relevant duty (effectively or at all) is intended to create a right of action (ie to entitle claimants to sue for breach of statutory duty). Where the legislation itself expressly (a) creates a right of action, or (b) modifies existing common law duties, then the position should be relatively straightforward. The best known example for the purposes of personal injury lawyers is the right to sue if a claimant is injured because of the highway authority’s

This Practice Note provides a summary of the key factors in bringing a private prosecution. It is designed to provide a practical resource to those considering bringing a private prosecution. For an introduction to private prosecutions generally, see Practice Note: Private prosecutions—an introductory guide. Starting a private prosecution—initial considerations Private prosecutors may represent themselves, or they may be represented by lawyers engaged by them to conduct the proceedings. The following are some of the initial matters for lawyers and private prosecutors (the private prosecution team) to take into account when considering starting a private prosecution. Duties of the private prosecutor and prosecution team A private prosecutor is under the same duty as a public prosecutor to act as a minister of justice. In order to comply with this duty, although not mandatory, prosecutors should aim to comply with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) Code for Crown Prosecutors. Lawyers who have conduct of private prosecutions should observe the highest standards of integrity, and must act in the public interest, as

This Practice Note considers the different legal bases for bringing a professional negligence claim, ie founding the existence of the professional’s duty to the claimant. Sometimes the question of whether a duty exists is bound up with questions as to the specific loss being sought to be recovered and thus the scope of the duty and related issues, for guidance on which see: Professional negligence claim—scope of duty, causation and remoteness—checklist and related content. For guidance on how to commence a professional negligence claim, see Practice Notes: • Starting a professional negligence claim—a practical guide • Pleading professional negligence claims—worked hypothetical examples and related precedents For guidance on the standard of care in professional negligence claims, see Practice Notes: • Standard of care in professional negligence claims • Standard of care—solicitors and barristers Guidance on parties to professional negligence claims and the role of the Pre-Action Protocol for Professional Negligence claims includes Practice Note: Professional negligence claims—the pre-action protocol. For a summary of illustrative

This guide provides general information about bringing a claim in the employment tribunal in England and Wales, the formalities that must be complied with for presenting a valid claim, an outline of the procedure involved and important information about steps for you to take now if you are considering bringing a claim. Your employment lawyer will be able to provide specific advice based on your circumstances. Initial considerations The party bringing a claim in the employment tribunal is referred to as ‘the claimant’ and the party defending the claim (typically your current or former employer) is referred to as ‘the respondent’. A claimant can choose to represent themselves at the tribunal, or to be represented by someone else, such as a lawyer or a representative from their trade union. Unlike the civil courts, there are no tribunal fees payable for bringing a claim in the employment tribunal. Before commencing any claim you should consider if you have any insurance that could help cover the legal costs of bringing or defending a claim, for example, through your home, motor,

Dispute Resolution analysis: Makin was a litigant who was made the subject of an anonymity order in 2014. By 2021, there were concerns that the order was no longer justified. In 2023, the order was removed. Mrs Justice May considered the court’s jurisdiction to do so and held that it was right to remove the protection because—(a) there were powerful public interest factors in favour of now identifying Makin (who had acted improperly in conducting his own case as a solicitor advocate); and (b) the original factors justifying anonymity no longer outweighed the public interest in open justice. Although this is a fairly extreme case, it explores the proper ambit of anonymity orders and when they ought to be made or revoked. Written by Matthew McGhee, barrister at Twenty Essex.

Property Disputes analysis: What constitutes a distinct cause of action from a claim for damages for trespass? Andy Creer, barrister at Hardwicke, considers the judgment handed down in Farrar v Leongreen.

ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. For guidance on summary judgment and strike out generally, see: Summary judgment and strike out—overview, which includes specific guidance on responding to an application for summary judgment or strike out, see Practice Note: Summary judgment and strike out—tactical considerations. Amendments to CPR Part 24 and CPR PD 24—1 October 2023 Practitioners should note that the CPR provisions relevant to summary judgment were amended with effect from 1 October 2023. CPR Part 24 was substituted and CPR PD 24 was revoked. The changes were intended to simplify the rules, and do not materially alter the substantive law or practice. The numbering and location of some provisions is changed. Accordingly, authorities which pre-date the 1 October 2023 amendments may include reference to the previous provisions and numbering. References in this Checklist are to the wording of CPR Part 24 as currently in force. For tables showing the destination of the old provisions and the derivation of the new provisions, see Practice Note: Summary judgment—CPR

ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 October 2019; it is no longer maintained. See further: timeline commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline Appeals against the High Court’s judgment concerning a damages claim by BritNed Development Ltd as result of the power cables cartel from ABB AB and ABB Limited (Commission decision AT.39610) Latest developments On 31 October 2019, the Court of Appeal handed down its judgment. In relation to the appeal by BritNed Development Limited, the Court of Appeal dismissed its appeal in its entirety. With regards to the appeal by ABB AB and ABB Limited, the Court of Appeal partially upheld its appeal concerning the award of damages for ‘cartel savings’, which it argued was in breach of the basic principles of compensation. Parties BrtiNed Development Limited (BritNed): BritNed is a joint venture between National Grid and TenneT, is the operator of the UK and Dutch electricity grids. BritNed owns and operates the BritNed ‘Interconnector’, a 1,000MW capacity electricity

West Cumbria has major nuclear and wider energy assets and internationally competitive expertise and skills in a range of related activities, including environmental remediation, engineering and decommissioning. Employment in Research and Development is double the regional average. Britain's Energy Coast aims to utilise these strengths and assist the UK to achieve its policy objectives and secure jobs for the local economy.

The British Academy (BA) has urged the government to maintain the viability of the Graduate Visa scheme in a letter to the Chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, Professor Brian Bell. This follows recent increases in costs and policy changes concerning visas that the BA say could prevent the flow of international talent into the UK which, they warn, could damage the UK's research sector.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) regulates films for cinema and video works. The BBFC is an independent, non-governmental body funded through the fees it charges to those who submit films and video works for classification.