Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923

House of Lords

Basic Facts: P was injured after hitting a car at a poorly visible junction known to the council. The council had attempted improvements but the issue was unresolved.

Issue: What constitutes an omission by a public authority making them negligent in tort?

Held: (3:2) that the public body in the case was not liable for their omission. It was said the public body had the power to act but not a duty to act. So there was no negligence here. The judgment reflects a balancing act between maintaining accountability for public authorities and avoiding unreasonable impositions that could disrupt effective governance and policy decision-making.

• Lord Nicholas of Birkenhead: There are two types of negligence: positive acts and omissions. A public authority may be liable for omissions if there is a special reason to compel action. The court should consider foreseeability and fairness. Here, the council's inaction was not actionable as it was not irrational.

• Lord Hoffmann: The distinction between "policy" and "operations" is problematic. There is only a duty to act if failing to do so is irrational. The council’s failure to act, while it had agreed to improvements, was not irrational, so no duty was breached.

💡Level up : The case emphasizes the limitations on establishing a duty of care arising from a failure to act. It highlights how public policy considerations and the nature of omissions impact the recognition of such duties.