Introduction
A breach of a duty, at its core, represents a failure to fulfill an obligation imposed by law, contract, or a fiduciary relationship. This concept is central to various legal fields, including contract law, tort law, and equity, and involves an individual's failure to act with the requisite level of care or to adhere to a stipulated obligation. The technical principles underlying a breach of duty vary depending upon the area of law, but key requirements typically include the existence of a duty, a failure to adhere to that duty, and consequential harm or loss suffered by another party. Understanding these core requirements and the formal language used to discuss them is vital for a comprehensive understanding of the topic.
Duty of Care: The Foundation
A duty of care exists where the law recognizes a relationship between individuals requiring one to act with reasonable care to avoid causing harm to another. This principle, a cornerstone of tort law, is not universal; rather, it is established through a consideration of factors such as foreseeability of harm, proximity of the relationship, and public policy considerations. The case of Donoghue v Stevenson serves as a fundamental precedent, illustrating that a manufacturer of goods owes a duty of care to the ultimate consumer, even in the absence of a direct contractual relationship. While the “neighbour principle” established in Donoghue provides a general framework, specific legal contexts such as those found in employment law, medical law, and professional liability have specific considerations which alter the test for determining the presence of a duty.
Breach of Duty: Failing to Meet the Standard
A breach of duty occurs when an individual fails to meet the standard of care required by the duty he/she owes to another. This standard is generally determined objectively by the test of the “reasonable person”, a hypothetical individual exercising normal prudence and acting with proper skill. However, standards will vary depending on the nature of the duty.
Professionals, for example, are held to the standards of their profession, as illustrated by the ‘Bolam test’. This test, derived from Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, states that a medical professional is not negligent if his actions align with the practices of a responsible body of other medical professionals within the field. Importantly, this test provides some autonomy for practitioners when determining the correct course of action. A subsequent judgement, Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, clarified that this test should not be followed without applying a logical and defensible lens to its conclusion. The court is able to assess whether an opinion is logical and properly justified, and must refuse to follow one that lacks logical coherence.
Causation: Establishing a Direct Link
Establishing a breach of a duty, however, is only one element of a successful tort claim. It is also essential to demonstrate that such a breach caused harm or loss. Courts utilise the ‘but for’ test for causation, meaning that ‘but for’ the breach of duty the claimant would not have experienced such a loss or harm. A key principle, set out in Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, is that there needs to be a direct factual link between the defendant’s conduct and the claimant’s loss.
In the context of negligence, there is also a requirement to demonstrate that the harm is not too ‘remote’ from the breach of duty. As set out in the case of Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound), liability is only possible for harm which is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the defendant’s actions or omissions. Therefore, the claimant is required to prove the type of harm was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the negligence; the specific manner of the harm and its extent, does not need to be foreseeable. The defendant is liable for the full extent of the damage as established in the case of Smith v Leech Brain & Co. This principle is sometimes known as the eggshell skull rule.
Breach of Contract: Failure to Fulfill Obligations
In contract law, a breach of a duty occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill an obligation that is explicitly agreed upon by the terms of the agreement or implied by law. In contrast to tort law, which focuses on a ‘duty of care’ between parties in various relationships, contract law considers that contracts are willingly entered into by consenting adults, and should thus be enforced.
A breach of contract may arise from non-performance, defective performance, or anticipatory breach. The remedies for such a breach often encompass damages intended to put the innocent party into the position that would have been achieved had the contract been properly performed, and in certain circumstances, specific performance. However, some remedies will be denied by certain breaches, such as an anticipatory breach, which merely give an action for damages.
Fiduciary Duty: Betrayal of Trust
Fiduciary duties arise in relationships of trust and confidence, such as between a trustee and a beneficiary, or an agent and a principal. Breach of a fiduciary duty involves not acting in the best interests of a party to whom the duty is owed. It also involves instances of self-dealing where a trustee seeks to gain an advantage through a trust, and where a trustee is under a conflict of interest.
Fiduciary breaches involve a form of wrong which is particularly egregious, as it involves a betrayal of trust. Therefore, courts will look upon these breaches as exceptionally serious and are likely to order severe remedies against the defendant. In Regal (Hastings) v Gulliver, directors were held liable to account for profits made through the use of company property. Other remedies in cases of fiduciary duty include the imposition of a constructive trust which prevents wrongdoing through the establishment of a proprietary remedy, or to claim an account of profits in order to take away an unfair advantage gained from the misuse of a fiduciary position.
Defences to Breach of Duty
There are certain defences that may apply to claims of a breach of a duty. These defences will allow for a reduction in the liability of a party.
(i) Contributory Negligence: If the claimant has himself been partially responsible for the harm caused by the defendant, damages may be reduced proportionally. The claimant can be seen as contributorily negligent when they acted in a way that an ordinary person would not have. Such a defence is statutorily recognised under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945 s.1. Contributory negligence is applicable to negligence claims, and even where breach of statutory duty applies in negligence it may still be applicable.
(ii) Volenti non fit injuria: If the claimant was fully aware of the risks involved, and chose to accept them, then a claim in negligence may be defeated. This defence of volenti will not apply unless there is a full and comprehensive understanding of the risk that was being undertaken by the claimant as illustrated in the case of White v Blackmore. This is especially true in cases involving an employer’s breach of statutory duties under the Factories Act 1961 and Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
(iii) Illegality: Courts may refuse to enforce contracts or award damages where the claim arises from or has a direct link to illegal activity. This “defence”, commonly referred to as “ex turpi causa” is designed to prevent claimants from profiting from their own wrongdoing, but also to maintain a consistency in the law. However, as illustrated by Patel v Mirza, this area is highly complex and may give rise to situations in which claimants are unable to receive justice as a result of their illegal activity.
Conclusion
In conclusion, breach of duty is a foundational concept that encompasses various legal frameworks such as contract law, tort, and equity. The key principles include the existence of a duty, the breach of that duty through a failure to meet the required standard of care, and causation demonstrating a direct link between the breach and the loss or harm suffered by another. Whilst the courts take a flexible approach in the application of the relevant case and statute law in each of these fields, a consistent theme in the modern law is to ensure that justice is served, by imposing liability on those who are found to have breached an important legal principle.
