Abstract
The increase in the powers of public authorities is rightly accompanied by a concern that they should be neither abused nor exceeded. One form of control lies in the judicial remedies, of which the least employed is damages. This is not surprising since, regardless of the loss sustained, the unlawfulness of an administrative act does not automatically confer any right to compensation. Where an administrative act is unlawful because it involves a tort such as negligence, nuisance or trespass, then it is well-established that the public authority responsible will be liable to pay damages to those whom it affects. It is, however, unlikely that one of those torts will be committed where the unlawfulness stems from a breach of the rules of natural justice or a failure to consider all the relevant factors. Nor will they necessarily be involved where an authority misuses or exceeds its powers; for example, by the wrongful refusal or cancellation of a licence. Nevertheless, the extent of governmental regulation means that loss for individuals and businesses is not inconceivable where these types of illegality take place. If there is no right to compensation in such cases, then success in obtaining certiorari or mandamus might well be regarded as a pyrrhic victory.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference76 articles.
1. Becker v. Home Office [1972] 2 Q.B. 407, 418.
2. Clippens Oil Co. v. Edinburgh and District Water Trustees [1907]
3. James v. Woodhall Duckham Construction Company [1969] 1 W.L.R. 903.
4. Aldred v. Langmuir [1932]
5. David v. Abdul Coder [1963] 1 W.L.R. 834.
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献