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 best person to bring up a child is the natural parent. It matters not whether the parent is wise or foolish, rich or poor, educated or illiterate, provided the child's moral and physical health are not endangered. Public authorities exercise a supervisory role and interfere to rescue a child when the parental tie is broken by abuse or separation.

Where a public authority has issued a promise or adopted a practice which represents how it proposes to act in a given area, the law will require the promise or practice to be honoured unless there is good reason not to do so. I would prefer to express it rather more broadly as a requirement of good administration, by which public bodies ought to deal straightforwardly and consistently with the public.

Whether or not that premise could have been supported in the context of a public authority charged with functions imposed in the interests of public health, it cannot be supported, as it seems to me, in the context of legislation enacted following a decision to privatise the water industry.

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 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.