½Û×ÓÊÓƵ

View the related practice notes about Strict liability

Strict liability

Strict liability applies to offences for which the prosecution is not required to prove mens rea for one or more elements of the offence. What the defendant knew, believed, or intended is unlikely to be relevant. Guilt can therefore be established by the commission of an act regardless of mindset.Strict liability runs against the presumption that criminal offences require proof of both actus reus and mens rea. Wright J in Sherras v De Rutzen stated:‘There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.’Strict liability is generally intended to regulate conduct that is particularly harmful to society. Societal protection overrides the presumption that the prosecution must prove mens rea.Strict liability offences focus more on factual consequences than the mindset of the accused. This...

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements

Jurisdiction agreements—exclusive jurisdiction agreements This Practice Note considers exclusive jurisdiction agreements (also known as choice of court agreements). Specific considerations as to the construction, effect and enforcement of this type of jurisdiction agreements are discussed. For guidance on: • non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements • asymmetric jurisdiction clauses, see Practice Note: Jurisdiction agreements—asymmetric jurisdiction agreements What is an exclusive jurisdiction clause? An exclusive jurisdiction clause or agreement, provides for the courts in a specified jurisdiction to hear disputes between the parties; it creates a contractual right not to be sued elsewhere. A number of exclusive jurisdiction clauses also include forum non conveniens waivers, ie the parties irrevocably waiver any right to bringing proceedings in a jurisdiction other than that stipulated in the jurisdiction clause. Exclusive jurisdiction clauses differ from non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in that they exclude the rights of the parties to commence proceedings in a different jurisdiction to that provided for in the jurisdiction clause. For example exclusive jurisdiction clauses, see Practice...

View the related precedents about Strict liability

Financial sanctions policy

Financial sanctions policy 1 Introduction This financial sanctions policy sets out the procedures we have developed to comply with financial sanctions requirements made under the UK sanctions regime that apply to our business[ across every jurisdiction in which we operate]. 2 What are financial sanctions? 2.1 Financial sanctions are non-permanent international restrictions aimed at: 2.1.1 encouraging a change in the behaviour of a particular country or regime; 2.1.2 applying pressure on particular countries or regimes to comply with certain objectives; 2.1.3 preventing and suppressing terrorist financing. 2.2 Financial sanctions are also used as a last resort enforcement tool when international peace and security has been threatened. 2.3 Financial sanctions restrict dealings in money and the provision of financial services—they can include the prohibition of funds transfers to and from certain countries, individuals or entities. 2.4 They are designed to have an adverse impact on persons (individuals or corporate entities) that are designated or (for some sanctions) connected with a prescribed country, in a number of different...

View the related q&as about Strict liability

Where a builder working on property A causes damage to a neighbouring property, who is liable to the neighbour for that damage, the employer (who owns property A) or the builder?

Where a builder working on property A causes damage to a neighbouring property, who is liable to the neighbour for that damage, the employer (who owns property A) or the builder? If a builder causes physical damage to a neighbouring property then it is possible that both the employer (who owns the property on which the builder is working) and the builder would be directly liable to the owner of the adjourning damaged property. The basis for such liability can be in negligence, nuisance, disturbance of easements, or liability under the rule in Rylands v Fletcher which provides that a person who allows a dangerous element on their land which, if it escapes and damages a neighbour, is liable on a strict liability basis—it is not necessary to prove negligence on the part of the landowner from which has escaped the dangerous substance (see Practice Note: Private nuisance and the rule in Rylands v Fletcher—common law liability for environmental harm). Liability in negligence is established in...

How might a hire company be liable to a third party consumer who is injured by faulty goods supplied by the hire company under contract to an event organiser?

How might a hire company be liable to a third party consumer who is injured by faulty goods supplied by the hire company under contract to an event organiser? In answering this Q&A we have focused on liability under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987) only. We have not considered the liability arrangements under the contract between the hire company and the event organiser. There may be other relevant avenues of liability for the consumer not considered below. Product liability Liability for defective products is dealt with under CPA 1987, which implements into UK law the provisions of Directive 85/374/EEC, the Product Liability Directive and imposes a strict liability on producers of defective products for the damage caused by those defects. Pursuant to CPA 1987, s 2(3) the supplier of the product, whether it be a wholesaler, distributor or retailer, may be liable in place of the producer if it fails, within a reasonable period, to identify the producer or its supplier of the product...

View the related News about Strict liability

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—11 August 2022

This week’s edition of PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights includes an analysis of a mesothelioma case and the application of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010. We also have a review of the Ockenden Report on maternity services as well as news on the Department of Health and Social Care’s GP indemnity scheme. In addition, we have our usual round-up of other key cases and news and New Law Journal articles of interest.

Sentencing health and safety offences (R v Nestle UK)

Corporate Crime analysis: The defendant applied for permission to appeal a fine of £640,000 following a guilty plea to one count of failing to prevent access to dangerous parts of machinery, contrary to regulation 11 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 (PUWER 1998) and section 33(1)(c) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 (HSWA 1974). Permission to appeal was sought on three potential grounds: (1) whether the offender’s breach was a significant cause of actual harm; (2) the discount for guilty plea; and (3) whether a strict liability offence under the regulations should attract a lesser fine than a fine imposed for a breach of HSWA 1974. The application was refused: (1) the judge was entitled to uplift for actual harm; (2) the discount of 20% for guilty plea was not arguably wrong; (3) strict liability was only relevant to the issue of culpability. Written by Fiona Canby, barrister at Temple Garden Chambers.