The Queen v Saskatchewan Wheat Pool Groves v Lord Wimbrone (benefit of a class) - P was injured at Ds ironworks while operating

a machinery that, contrary to certain statutory requirements, was unfenced - P sues D for breach of statutory duty - On proof of a breach of this statutory duty imposed on D, and injury resulting to the P therefrom, prima facie P has a good cause of action unless it appears from the whole purview of the act that it was the intention of legislature that the only remed y for breach of the statutory duty should be proceeding for the fine imposed by the Act (s82) - If so where a workman has been injured by a breach of the duty imposed by s5, shall be remedied by proceeding before a court of summary jurisdiction for a fine under s82, which fine is not to exceed 100l - In dealing whether that is the intention of legislature, it is material to consider for whose benefit the Act was passed, whether it was passed in interests of the public at large or in those of a particular class of persons - Here the Act was passed in favour of workers employed in factories and workshops and to compel their employers to perform certain statutory duties for their protection and benefit - Considerations: o Under s 82 not a penny of the fine necessarily goes to the person injured or his family o It seems that the fine is inflicted by way of punishment of the employer for neglect of the duty imposed by the Act, and must be proportionate to the character of the offence - Thus it cannot have been the intention of the legislature that the provision which imposes upon the employer a fine as punishment for neglect of his statutory duty should take away the prima facie right of the workman to be fully compensated for injury occasioned to him by that neglect Judgment influenced in part by low amount of fine provided by enactment for breach of its provisions compare with Li Yuk-Lan where D had been fined a mere HKD$150 for statutory offence, but court not persuaded a civil remedy was available But why s 82 at the first place? Estinah v Golden Hand - D an employment agency for domestic helpers placed P domestic helper with an employer, but agency fee D charged P was higher than permitted by s 57 of Employment Ord. and regulations - s 57 does not expressly provide for a civil remedy, only a criminal penalty is imposed in s 60(7) - General rule is where a statute creates an obligation and enforces the obligation in a specific manner, performance cannot be enforced in any other manner - Two exceptions to this general rule, one being where upon the true construction of statute, it is apparent that the obligation or prohibition was imposed for the benefit or protection of a particular class of individuals, as in the case of industrial safety legislation - S 57(a) was intended for protection of those seeking employment through employment agencies, to regulate general conditions of employment and agencies and for matters connected therewith - It is a simple, specific and limited duty, it does not involve making of any difficult or delicate decision or the exercise of subjective judgment - The criminal sanction imposed on an employment agency would not be a sufficient remedy to those who had paid a commission in excess of the prescribed amount would give no financial protection to those most in need of such protection which in turn would be against the very purpose of the enactment of the provisions - Thus it would be right to interpret the statute as conferring a right of action despite existence of a criminal sanction X v Bedfordshire

If statute provides no other remedy for its breach and the parliamentary intention to protect a limited class is shown, that indicates that there may be a private right of action since otherwise there is no method of securing the protection the statute was intended to confer If statute does provide some other means of enforcing duty that will normally indicate that the statutory right was intended to be enforceable by those means and not by private right of action But existence of some statutory remedy is not necessarily decisive Where the act imposes duty that involves making difficult or delicate decision or the exercise of subjective judgment, it would require exceptionally clear statutory language to show a parliamentary intention that those responsible for carrying out these difficult functions should be liable in damages if, on subsequent investigation with benefit of hindsight, it was shown that they had reached an erroneous conclusion and therefore failed to discharge their statutory duties

Atkinson v The Newcastle - Waterworks Clauses Act s 42, D under a duty to keep charged with water under sufficient pressure all their pipes to which fire plugs shall be fixed D subject to penalties in event of a breach - Ps house caught fire and due to insufficient pressure in water supply, fire could not be extinguished and Ps house was destroyed - P sued D for breach of statutory duty, court finds no legislative intention to create a civil damages remedy - That a company supplying a town with water although they are willing to be put under obligation to keep up the pressure, and to be subject to penalties if they fail to do so should further be willing to assume (or parliament should think it necessary to subject them to liability to individual actions) necessarily means they not only undertake liability to penalties for failure of duties but essentially insurers, so far as water can produce safety from damage by fire - We have to consider why in some cases the penalty should go into the pocket of individual injured and not in others - In the case of the obligation to keep the pipes charged, and allow all persons to use the water for the purpose of extinguishing fires, the provision is for the benefit of the public and no of any individual specially, and the guarantee for the performance of the obligation is the liability to the public penalty of GBP10 - Breach of statutory duty action dismissed Tse Lai Yin v Incorporated Owners of Albert House - Pedestrians injured and killed when canopy of Ds building collapse d and fell on pavement below, Ps sued in negligence and breach of statutory duty, duties contained in the Buildings Ord. and Building Management Ord. - General rule: breach of statutory duty does not per se give rise to a cause of action for damages, such a cause of action may arise if it can be shown that 1. Statutory duty was intended by legislature for the protection of a specific class of the public and 2. Legislature intended to give members of that class a right of action for such breach - The Buildings Ord. enacted to regulate and control the planning design and construction of buildings, can find nothing to suggest that those sections were intended by legislature to either benefit or protect any specified class of public or create any private law right of action - This view enforced by fact that Ps can resort to other remedies against Ds in form of causes of action in negligence or nuisance - Also cannot show such breach of statutory duty resulted in injuries complained of - For Building Management Ord. clear from preamble and relevant sections that legislature never intended to give protection ot public generally nor to give general public any right of action for breach of duty therein; though it may give a right of action to parties to a deed of mutual covenant in respect of any particular building to enforce the obligation provided by the ord. against other parties to the same deed (relevant?) - Thus Ps have no cause of action against D for breach of statutory duty

Contrast with London Passenger Transport Board v Upson, court held pedestrians using a pedestrian crossing did constitute a class under the Pedestrian crossing Places (Traffic) Regulations and could sue much flexibility and scope for disagreement over this issue Phillips v Britannia Hygenic Laundry - Inclined to find no legislative intention in Motor Cars (Use and Construction) Orders to create a cause of action because the obligations of those who bring vehicles upon highways have been already well provided for and regulated by the common law (of negligence) Lonrho v Shell Petroleum Co Matteograssis Spa v Airport Authority Jenkins v Allied Ironfounders Wong Chi Shing v Argos Engineering Gorris v Scott