Strict liability meaning

Lifestyle Equities CV and Another v Ahmed and Another [2024] UKSC 17 What are the practical implications of this case? The Supreme Court has delivered its long‑awaited ruling on the appeal and cross‑appeals in Lifestyle Equities CV v Ahmed, proceeding from Lord Justice Birss’s judgment in the Court of Appeal [2021] EWCA Civ 675. Lord Leggatt wrote for the court, with Lords Kitchen, Lloyd‑Jones, Stephens and Richards agreeing. The judgment sets out a series of significant conclusions: Accessory liability (as a joint tortfeasor) in respect of a strict liability tort is not itself governed by the same strict standard. Conversely, an accessory must possess knowledge of the essential aspects of the tort to justify imposing joint liability on a person who has not themselves committed it. The identical test applies whether accessory liability is said to arise by procuring the tort or by participating in a common design with the primary tortfeasor. An account of profits sought from an accessory will therefore never...

Background to OTSI guidance Following Russia’s assault on Ukraine in February 2022, the UK brought in trade sanctions covering a broad spectrum of goods, technology and services. Although direct commerce between the UK and Russia has fallen markedly since these measures were imposed, Russia has continued attempting to source such items indirectly, often via intricate supply chains. This trend has heightened the exposure of UK businesses to sanctions circumvention and the diversion of products to Russia. The methods used to sidestep restrictions are diverse and evolve rapidly, including fabricated end-use details, routed shipments, and the involvement of professional sanctions evasion networks. Participants across supply chains must recognise the diversion threats created by Russia’s procurement activity in this changed environment. Among other provisions, UK trade sanctions bar the export from the UK of sanctioned items to, or for use in, Russia, even where those items are first consigned to another destination. It is therefore vital for UK companies to identify the final destination of their products and to apply rigorous,...

The mining group that owned and ran the Fundão Dam through a joint venture faced proceedings in England over the 2015 torrent of toxic sludge and mud that devastated communities in Brazil. Judge Finola O’Farrell ruled that BHP bore strict liability for harm to the environment and to third parties arising from the dam’s failure. The structure belonged to Samarco, a joint enterprise between Vale and BHP, and contained mining waste known as tailings. According to the 222-page judgment, BHP ought not to have persisted in raising the dam’s height before the collapse, a measure deemed a direct and immediate cause of the catastrophe. The ruling states the company should have known by 2014 that the dam had structural defects. As Judge O’Farrell observed, it was inconceivable that a decision would have been taken to continue increasing the height in those conditions, and the collapse could have been avoided. The judge held BHP liable both as a polluter under Brazilian environmental law and on the basis of fault under the...

What is the nature of the liability? The Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part IIA (EPA 1990) sets out a liability‑focused framework designed to address the United Kingdom’s legacy of contaminated land. Under Part IIA, causing contamination is not, in itself, a criminal offence. By contrast, failing to comply with a remediation notice served by the enforcing authority is an offence. Retrospective liability An ‘appropriate person’ can be required to meet the costs of cleaning up contaminated land where the contamination occurred before 1 April 2000, even if the conduct was lawful at the time. This retrospective element enables the enforcing authority to require remediation at historically polluted sites that would otherwise be unlikely to be remediated. ‘New’ contamination is ordinarily addressed under other regimes, such as the environmental permitting or environmental liability regimes. Strict liability For the ‘causation’ limb of the liability test, the regime is strict: the enforcing authority does not have to show that the original polluter intended to cause the contamination, or...

The elements of the offence of dangerous driving Dangerous driving arises under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). It is an indictable-only offence, triable solely in the Crown Court. The offence comprises the following: causing the death of another person by: driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place dangerously The issue is whether the defendant’s driving fell far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver, and whether it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that manner was dangerous. This is an objective assessment. It must be obvious to the competent and careful driver that it is dangerous to either: drive in that manner, or use the vehicle in its existing condition This is a strict liability offence. No mental element is required. Even without an intention to drive dangerously, if the defendant...

This Practice Note looks at product liability in the life sciences sector It centres on the strict liability framework in Directive 85/374/EEC (the Product Liability Directive (PLD)), its update by Directive (EU) 2024/2853 taking effect from December 2026, and the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (CPA 1987), and explores how these interact with the pharmaceutical and medical devices regulatory regimes. The proposed EU AI Liability Directive (AILD) and its implications are addressed. The Note outlines the statutory elements for establishing liability for defective products, the statutory defences available, and the forms of redress open to an injured party. It further examines responsibility arising from off‑label use of medicines and medical devices, and liability issues in the context of clinical trials. The UK’s product liability architecture predominantly originates in EU law. Numerous EU-derived principles and obligations have been carried over into UK domestic law, unless particular provisions state otherwise. Accordingly, the EU and UK positions are treated side by side: points on EU legal requirements should generally be read as applicable...

The Contract comprises the completed Standard Building Contract With Approximate Quantities 2016 published by the JCT subject to the following amendments: This Contract adopts JCT SBC/AQ 2016 with extensive modifications to reflect design responsibility, building safety and commercial controls. Recitals: Contractor to provide a master programme and Schedule of Information Requirements; confirms site due diligence and accepts full CDP design liability. Articles: Dutyholder Regulations added; Tender Price covers Principal Contractor duties; arbitration removed; Schedule of Amendments prevails; strict protection of Third Party Agreements. Definitions/governance: new and revised terms (Building Safety Regulator, HRB, Practical Completion, Copyright Material, Design Sub‑contractors, Dutyholder Regulations); several deletions; English court jurisdiction. Design/materials/information: skill‑and‑care design and coordination; only new, compliant, non‑deleterious materials; golden thread storage; monthly programme reporting; site risks at Contractor’s risk. Procedures/controls: tighter instruction, testing, defects and as‑built duties; enhanced confidentiality and IP licences; HRB assistance; CDM/Dutyholder competency confirmations. Sub‑contracting/rights: prescribed sub‑contracts, insurances and delivery of collateral warranties/third‑party rights; limits on assignment. Payment/commercial: 28‑day final...

Dear [ Insert name ] Re: [ Insert name of client/claimant ] The court has now set a timetable for the case in which you are involved as [ insert details eg liability expert ]. Please find enclosed a copy of the court directions...

This Agreement is hereby entered into on [ date ] as follows. Parties [ Insert name of supplier ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under company number [ insert registered number ], with its registered office at [ insert address ] (Supplier); [ Insert name of customer ], a company incorporated in [ England and Wales ] under company number [ insert registered number ], with its registered office at [ insert address ] (Customer), For the purposes of this Agreement, each of the Supplier and the Customer constitutes a party and, together, the Supplier and the Customer constitute the parties. Background (A) The Supplier is the licensor of certain software applications. (B) The Customer is [ insert details of the Customer’s background/background to licence or relevant transaction. ] (C) The Supplier has agreed to grant the Customer a licence to use the software applications on the terms of this Agreement. ...

Position where the contract for sale is silent in relation to environmental liabilities If a land sale contract says nothing about environmental liabilities, allocation of responsibility turns on various factors, including the nature of the liability, who caused or knowingly permitted the issue, and when it took place, depending on the circumstances in which it occurred. By way of illustration, there are several liability regimes for land contamination, including liability for contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) (see Practice Note: Land contamination—potential liabilities). Under EPA 1990, Part IIA, liability is both strict and retrospective. Class A persons, namely those who cause or knowingly permit the contamination, will be liable...