Strict Liability in UK Law
-
Attorney General v Times Newspapers Ltd
“
One particular form of contempt by a party to proceedings is that constituted by an intentional act which is in breach of the order of a competent court. Where this occurs as a result of the act of a party who is bound by the order or of others acting at his direction or on his instigation, it constitutes a civil contempt by him which is punishable by the court at the instance of the party for whose benefit the order was made and can be waived by him.
-
Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather
“
Seen in its context, there is no reason to suppose that Blackburn J. intended to create a liability any more strict than that created by the law of nuisance; but even so he must have intended that, in the circumstances specified by him, there should be liability for damage resulting from an isolated escape.
Of course, although liability for nuisance has generally been regarded as strict, at least in the case of a defendant who has been responsible for the creation of a nuisance, even so that liability has been kept under control by the principle of reasonable user — the principle of give and take as between neighbouring occupiers of land, under which "
Like the Judge in the present case (p. 50E), I incline to the opinion that, as a general rule, it is more appropriate for strict liability in respect of operations of high risk to be imposed by Parliament, than by the courts. If such liability is imposed by statute, the relevant activities can be identified, and those concerned can know where they stand. Furthermore, statute can where appropriate lay down precise criteria establishing the incidence and scope of such liability.
But if the words are extended to embrace the wider interests of the local community or the general benefit of the community at large, it is difficult to see how the exception can be kept within reasonable bounds.
-
Read v J. Lyons & Company Ltd
“
Every activity in which man engages is fraught with some possible element of danger to others. Experience shows that even from acts apparently innocuous injury to others may result. The more dangerous the act the greater is the care that must be taken in performing it. This relates itself to the principle in the modern law of torts that liability exists only for consequences which a reasonable man would have foreseen.
-
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Scrimgeour Vickers (Asset Management) Ltd and Another
“
In many cases, even in deceit, it will be appropriate to value the asset acquired as at the transaction date if that truly reflects the value of what the plaintiff has obtained. In many cases, even in deceit, it will be appropriate to value the asset acquired as at the transaction date if that truly reflects the value of what the plaintiff has obtained.
-
Contempt of Court Act 1981
... ... Strict liability ... 1: The strict liability rule ... In this Act the strict ... ...
-
Animals Act 1971
... ... Act 19711971 c.22An Act to make provision with respect to civil liability for damage done by animals and with respect to the protection of livestock ... Strict liability for damage done by animals ... 1: New provisions as to strict ... ...
-
Northern Ireland Act 1998
... ... (2) A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule as the publisher of any matter—(a) in the course of ... ...
-
Broadcasting Act 1990
... ... of a licence under this Part shall not relieve him of—(a) any liability in respect of a failure to hold F501a licence under section 8 of the ... 49) ... (31) (1) In section 2 (limitation of scope of strict liability) —(a) in subsection (1) , for “broadcast cable programme” ... ...
- The Restriction of Strict Liability
-
Strict Criminal Liability: A Violation of the Convention?
Since its inception in the late 19th century, strict criminal liability has been used to grapple with regulatory offences. The object of this article is to show that in most cases and in spite of t...
-
Strict Liability for Police Nonfeasance? The Kinghan Report on the Riot (Damages) Act 1886
The Riot (Damages) Act 1886 imposes a no‐fault obligation on police forces to compensate owners of property damaged in rioting. Following the riots across England in 2011 an independent Home Office...
- Strict Liability and the Reasonable Excuse Defence
-
New Era in UK Sanctions Enforcement: Introduction of Strict Liability Standard and OFSI Guidance Update
On 15 June 2022, the UK Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) implemented important changes to its enforcement powers and updated its “Monetary Penalty” guidance. In summary, OFSI has...
-
The UK’s OFSI provides guidance on strict liability sanctions breach penalties
The Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI), part of HM Treasury, which is the authority for implementing financial sanctions in the UK, have published guidance to clarify how they will...
-
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 – the conundrum of strict liability
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (the Act), which came into force in March 2022, aimed amongst other things, to give UK sanctions authorities greater power to take enforce...
-
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 – the conundrum of strict liability
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 (the Act), which came into force in March 2022, aimed amongst other things, to give UK sanctions authorities greater power to take enforce...