Public Health in UK Law

First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter—in which case a prima facie duty of care arises.

The code covers 16 discrete topics, the third of which is "Privacy". This is one of the topics where the code makes clear that there may be exceptions to the rules set out in the code where they can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. This phrase is said to include (i) detecting or exposing crime or a serious misdemeanour; (ii) protecting public health and safety; and (iii) preventing the public from being misled by some statement or action of an individual or organisation.

The court is able to achieve this by absorbing the rights which articles 8 and 10 protect into the long-established action for breach of confidence. This involves giving a new strength and breadth to the action so that it accommodates the requirements of those articles.

The initial burden lies on an applicant to prove the legitimacy of his expectation. This means that in a claim based on a promise, the applicant must prove the promise and that it was clear and unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification. If he wishes to reinforce his case by saying that he relied on the promise to his detriment, then obviously he must prove that too.

The fallacy, as it seems to me, lies in the underlying (but unspoken) premise that Parliament must have intended that sewerage undertakers should have facilities to discharge (which, plainly, they do require in order to carry out their functions) without paying for those facilities.

The distinction between chattels and real property is quite unsustainable. If the manufacturer of an article is liable to a person injured by his negligence, so should the builder of a house be liable. In Gallagher v. McDowell (1961) N. I. 26, Lord Mac Dermott, L. C. J., and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Court of Appeal held that a contractor who built a house negligently was Liable to a person injured by his negligence.

The manner in which the authority terminated, or purported to terminate, Mr. Walsh's contract of employment related to their conduct as employers in a pure master and servant context and not to the performance of their duties, or exercise of their powers as an authority providing a health service for the public at large.