65
|
P a g e
It was held by the Sheriff Principal, allowing the appeal, that (1) the 1969 Act had been
designed to protect a distinct class of persons, namely employees, any incidental benefit
to employers did not affect that view, Richardson v Pitt-Stanley [1995] not followed,
and (2) while s1 of the 1969 Act created an obligation on the part of the company to
insure, s5 obliged the officers of a company to ensure that s1 was complied with.
Atkinson v Newcastle Waterworks Co (1877)
The mere fact that the breach of a public statutory duty has caused damage does not
vest a right of action in the person suffering the damage against the person guilty of the
breach; whether the breach does or does not give such right of action must depend
upon the object and language of the particular statute.
By the Waterworks Clauses Act 1847 the undertakers are: (1) to fix and maintain fire-
plugs; (2) to furnish to the town commissioners a sufficient supply of water for certain
public purposes; (3) to keep their pipes to which fire-plugs are fixed at all times charged
with water at a certain pressure, and to allow all persons at all times to use the same for
extinguishing fire without compensation; and (4) to supply to every owner or occupier
of any dwelling-house, having paid or tendered the water-rate, sufficient water for
domestic purposes. By s43 a penalty of £10 (recoverable summarily before two justices,
who may award not more than half the penalty to the informer, and are to give the
remainder to the overseers of the parish) is imposed on the undertakers for the neglect
of each of the above duties, and for the neglect of (2) and (4) they are further to forfeit
to the commissioners or ratepayers a penalty of 40s. a day, for each day during which
such neglect continues after notice in writing of non-supply.
The plaintiff brought an action for damages against a waterworks company for not
keeping their pipes charged as required by the Act, whereby his premises, situated
within the limits of the Defendants' Act, were burnt down.
It was held by the Court of Exchequer Chamber (reversing the decision of the Court of
Exchequer), that the statute gave no right of action to the plaintiff. The court regarded it
as startling that the water company should virtually become insurers of the safety from
fire, so far as water can produce that safety, of all the houses in the district.
Clegg Parkinson & Co v Earby Gas Co [1896]
The plaintiffs claimed £50 damages from the defendants for breach of contract to supply
gas continuously as required by the plaintiffs, and in accordance with the Earby and
Thornton Gas Order 1894, alleging that on certain days no gas had been supplied, and
on other days only a deficient and impure supply at less than the prescribed pressure
had been given. Alternatively, the plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of the
defendants' statutory duties under the Earby and Thornton Gas Order 1894, and the Act
confirming the same, and under the Gasworks Clauses Act 1871. The plaintiffs had taken
and paid for a supply of gas from the defendants, but there was no written or express
contract between them.
It was held in the Queen's Bench Division, on appeal from the county court, that an
action will not lie against a gas company, to which the provisions of the Gasworks
Clauses Act 1871 apply, for damages sustained by a consumer by reason of their failure
to give him a supply of gas sufficient in amount and in purity to satisfy the requirements
of the Act. The consumer's only remedy is to proceed for penalties under s36 of the Act
(
which provided for a fine of 40s for each day of non-supply and a fine not exceeding
