Harris v Evans [1998] 1 WLR 1285;
[1998] 3 All ER 522;
[1998] NLJR 745; [1998] EHLR 142;
NEGLIGENCE, HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE, DUTY OF CARE, ECONOMIC LOSS, STATUTORY POWERS, IMPROVEMENT NOTICES, PROHIBITION NOTICES
Facts
The plaintiff ran a business providing bungee jumping facilities to the public by using a mobile telescopic crane. In 1993, the first defendant – an inspector at the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) carried out an inspection of the plaintiff’s crane. He advised the local authorities that the crane should not be used until it was certified fit for that special purpose. The local authority served the plaintiff with two improvement notices pursuant to s. 21 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The plaintiff mostly complied with the improvement notices but did not undergo a certification process as this was deemed impracticable. As a result, the local authority served him with a prohibition notice pursuant to s. 22 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, directing the plaintiff to cease using the crane, which effectively prevented him from continuing to operate his business. The local authority subsequently withdrew their notices following a letter by the Secretary of State for Employment, which stated that the advice of the HSE inspector was against the HSE policy. The plaintiff brought a negligence claim against the inspector and the local authority. On the defendants’ application, the master struck out the statement of claim as disclosing no cause of action, but the judge allowed the plaintiff’s appeal. Then the defendants appealed.
Issues
Do the HSE inspectors owe business owners a common law duty of care to avoid economic loss?
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was allowed.
(1) Given the purpose of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 to protect the public from risks related to business activity, and the extensive powers available to HSE inspectors for this purpose, when deciding what exercise of power they should make, the HSE inspectors do not owe a duty of care to the proprietors of businesses.
(2) To impose such a duty is likely to lead to postponing the health and safety decisions made until further inquiries are complete and would be detrimental to the ability of HSE inspectors to discharge their responsibilities.
(3) It is implicit in the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 that improvement and prohibition notices might lead to economic loss and the act provides a statutory appeals procedure to minimise its impact.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises Harris v Evans [1998] 1 WLR 1285, a Court of Appeal decision that remains good law. The principle that HSE inspectors do not owe a common law duty of care in negligence to business proprietors in respect of economic loss arising from the exercise of statutory powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 has not been overturned by subsequent legislation or case law. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 itself, including ss. 21 and 22 governing improvement and prohibition notices, remains in force in substantially the same form. The broader negligence principles engaged — particularly concerning liability for pure economic loss and the exercise of statutory powers — are consistent with the subsequent development of the law in cases such as Gorringe v Calderdale MBC [2004] UKHL 15 and Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales [2015] UKSC 2, which confirm a generally restrictive approach to imposing common law duties of care where Parliament has conferred statutory powers. Readers should be aware that the law on negligence and public authority liability continues to develop, and the precise limits of any duty of care in analogous contexts should be checked against current authorities. This article is, however, broadly accurate as a statement of the position established by the case itself.
