The claimant said the respondent adjudication officer had been negligent in assessing and rejecting his claim for benefits, which had later been allowed on appeal. The officer claimed he was exercising a judicial office and was immune from action. He appealed refusal of his strike out claim, and added that he had no duty of care.
Held: The officer exercised an administrative, not a judicial function, and so had no immunity. However his duties were of a public law nature, and no common law duty of care to the claimant arose.
Citations:
[1989] QB 1, [1988] 2 WLR 493
Statutes:
Crown Proceedings Act 1947 2(5), Social Security Act 1975 117(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Peabody Donation Fund v Sir Lindsay Parkinson and Co Ltd HL 18-Oct-1983
Architects proposed a system of flexible drains for a site, but the contractors persuaded them to accept rigid drains which once laid proved inadequate at considerable cost. The local authority had permitted the departure from the plans.
Held: . .
Cited – Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong PC 1987
(Hong Kong) The claimant deposited money with a licensed deposit taker, regulated by the Commissioner. He lost his money when the deposit taker went into insolvent liquidation. He said the regulator was responsible when it should have known of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Negligence, Administrative
Updated: 12 May 2022; Ref: scu.189981