Legal Case Summary
Stovin v Wise [1996] UKHL 15
The availability of a private law claim in negligence in respect of a failure of a local authority to comply with a public law discretion
Facts
A local authority was aware that a bank of land was obstructing the view at a junction where three accidents had occurred in the previous twelve years. The authority had discussed the matter with the land owners and had agreed to carry out the required work. No action had been taken however by the time that the claimant was seriously injured in an accident. The claimant claimed damages not only from the driver of the other vehicle, but also from the local authority.
Issue
The issue in this context was whether a local authority could be found to owe a common law duty of care if it had not complied with a public law obligation.
Decision / Outcome
The House of Lords allowed the local authority’s appeal. It was acknowledged that the Highways Act 1980, s 79 did allow a local authority the power to remove obstructions. However, the statutory power did not give rise to a common law duty of care. It was considered that even if the work should have been carried out, a public law duty could not give rise to a common law claim for non-performance. If this was the case, an unacceptable burden would be placed on the local authority’s budget in respect of being permitted to exercise its discretion, especially since road users were already required to carry insurance. In other words, it was not fair, just or reasonable to impose a duty in these circumstances.
Updated 20 March 2026
This summary of Stovin v Wise [1996] AC 923 remains legally accurate. The House of Lords’ holding — that a local authority’s failure to exercise a statutory power under the Highways Act 1980 does not of itself give rise to a common law duty of care in negligence — continues to represent good law. The case remains an important authority on the distinction between public law obligations and private law duties of care, and on the application of the Caparo fair, just and reasonable test in the context of omissions by public bodies.
Readers should be aware that the broader area of public authority liability in negligence has continued to develop significantly since 1996. In particular, the Supreme Court in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 reaffirmed and clarified the applicable principles, emphasising that liability for omissions by public bodies remains the exception rather than the rule. The Human Rights Act 1998 has also introduced a parallel framework under which acts or omissions by public authorities may engage Article 2 or Article 8 ECHR obligations, though that route to liability is distinct from the common law negligence claim addressed in Stovin v Wise. Students should read this case alongside later authorities, including Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, for a complete picture of the current law.
