Derek dismissed them. The Court of Appeal the decisions and reasons for the same were upheld. The court did not disturb the findings of fact as the same were admitted. The importance of the decision lies in the court's statement of principle may be stated as the coastguards were under no enforceable private law duty of care to respond to an emergency call and under no duty of care.
Although the issue is expressed in this general way, the specific right in question in these appeals, is whether an action for breach of legal duty to take care while performing duties by coastguard can be brought against the Secretary who is responsible for Coastguard.
law as to what is the duty to take care. Professor Sir Percy Winfield (1933) (1) defined a tort as 'the breach of a duty primarily fixed by the law, where the duty is one towards persons generally and its breach is redressible by an action for damages.' This necessarily implies that to succeed in an action the plaintiff must prove that
In the absence of such legal duty negligence has no legal consequence. In Brett M.R. in Heaven v. Pender (2) it was established that under certain circumstances, one man may owe a duty to another, even though there is no privity of contract between them. Dicta of Brett M.R. in Heaven v. Pender as considered in 1932 by Lord Atkins J. in Donoghue v. Stevenson (3) laid down a very important principle of determining a duty. He held that
"The liability for negligence, whet ...Show more