The 1893 Act was criticised for its complexity. A section gave protection to public authorities for ‘any act done in pursuance, or execution, or intended execution of any Act of Parliament, or of any power duty or authority, or in respect of any alleged neglect or default in the execution of any such Act, duty or authority.’ The Corporation relied on this section when sued by an occupier who had purchased coke from the municipal gasworks. As a result of the negligence of an employee of the corporation the coke was tipped through the shop window of the purchaser in the course of its delivery.
Held: Lord Buckmaster LC said that the Act only applied where: ‘the act is one which is either an act in the direct execution of a statute, or in the discharge of public duty, or the exercise of the public authority.’
Viscount Haldane said speaking of the words of the section: ‘I do not think that they can be properly extended so as to embrace an act which is not done in direct pursuance of the provisions of the statute or in the direct execution of the duty or authority.’
Judges:
Lord Buckmaster LC
Citations:
[1916] 1 AC 242
Statutes:
Public Authorities Protection Act 1893
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Pountney v Griffiths; Regina v Bracknell Justices, Ex parte Griffiths HL 1976
The applicant was a male nurse at Broadmoor Special Hospital. He was on duty while patients were saying goodbye to visitors. He approached the detained patient telling him to ‘come on’ and allegedly punched him on the shoulder. The patient brought . .
Cited – Seal v Chief Constable of South Wales Police HL 4-Jul-2007
The claimant had sought to bring proceedings against the respondent, but as a mental patient subject to the 1983 Act, had been obliged by the section first to obtain consent. The parties disputed whether the failure was a procedural or substantial . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Local Government
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.254625