63
|
P a g e
Lord Greene MR considered what was meant by system when considering an
employer's duty to provide a safe system of working: "I do not venture to suggest a
definition of what is meant by system, but it includes, in my opinion, or may include the
physical lay-out of the job - the setting of the stage, so to speak - the sequence in which
the work is to be carried out, the provision in proper cases of warnings and notices, and
the issue of special instructions. A system may be adequate for the whole course of the
job or it may have to be modified or improved to meet circumstances which arise. Such
modifications or improvements appear to me equally to fall under the head of system."
Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry [1923]
A motor lorry, being a light locomotive within the meaning of the Locomotives on
Highways Act 1896 and a motor car within the meaning of the Motor Cars (Use and
Construction) Order 1904, made under s6 of the 1896 Act, was being driven along a
highway. Through no fault of its owners, the lorry was in such a condition as to cause
danger to persons on the lorry in that one of its axles was defective. The axle broke, and
a wheel came off and damaged another vehicle. The owner of the damaged vehicle
brought an action against the owners of the lorry for a breach of the Order ("The motor
car and all the fittings thereof shall be in such a condition as not to cause, or to be likely
to cause, danger to any person on the motor car or on any highway.").
It was held by the Court of Appeal that it was not intended by the Act or the Order that
every one injured through a breach of the Order should have a right of action for
damages; but that the duty imposed by the Order was a public duty only to be enforced
by the penalty imposed for a breach of it, and not otherwise. Atkin LJ stated that 'the
obligations of those who bring vehicles upon highways have been already well provided
for and regulated by the common law'.
McCall v Abelesz and another [1976]
The plaintiff was a tenant in a house in which there were other tenants. The house was
bought by the new landlords at an auction sale without it having been seen by them. The
landlords' manager went to see the house after the gas board had cut off the supply of
gas to the house because the bill owing by the previous owners had not been paid. The
two other tenants left, each owing rent. The gas supply was not restored until six
months later and for a time the electricity and water supplies to the house were also cut
off. The tenant, who did not accept the landlords' offer of alternative accommodation,
claimed damages for harassment based solely on breach of s30 (2) of the Rent Act 1965.
The landlords appealed, claiming that s30 created a purely criminal offence and gave no
civil right to damages.
It was held by the Court of Appeal, allowing the appeal, that s30 (4) of the Rent Act 1965
preserved the existing adequate civil remedies for harassment of a residential occupier
of premises and s30 (2) of the Act, which was clearly a penal provision, did not create a
new statutory cause of action for damages.
Per curiam: the necessary intention on the part of the landlords to cause the tenant to
give up his occupation was not proved so as to constitute an offence under s30 (2) of the
Act of 1965.
