Page:Halsbury Laws of England v1 1907.pdf/247

.

Part

TV.

— Conditions

Peecedent to Action.

25

provides for notice, notice must be given if it was passed before 1843, one month's notice will be sufficient if it was passed since 18-13 (//), the length of notice will be that prescribed by the statute, or if none be prescribed, then reasonable notice, as a rule if it

^'e,gt. 4.





presumably one month

Notice of Action,

{h).

Proceedings arising out of a public general statute, and being proceedings to which the Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, In this case no notice is now required. applies. (3) Proceedings arising out of a public general statute, but not being proceedings to which the Act of 1893 applies this class of cases is governed by the same rules as class (1), supra. (2)



34. It is necessary, therefore, to consider briefly to what proceed- Defendants First, as to the class of defendants ings the Act of 1893 does apply. f It only applies to defendants acting in purto whom it applies. suance or execution, or intended execution, of a statute, pubhc duty, or authority it is generally accepted that it does not apply to ordinary individuals or trading companies, though acting under statutory powers {i), but is confined to public officials and authorities. Thus it applies to local authorities acting as harbour authorities {k), as tramway authorities (/), as burial authorities (m), as education authorities {u), as purveyors of gas, water, and electricity (o), as highway or sanitary authorities etc. To all such bodies and their officials (p) carrying out their orders the statute apphes if the act of commission or omission complained of was committed in pursuance or execution, or intended execution, of some statute or public duty. So it was held to apply where officials of a highway authority were sued in respect of an alleged trespass committed by them under express orders to assert a public right of way, for it was the authority's duty to protect rights of way(^), but not to proceedings against a borough councillor for voting in the council when disqualified (?•). And it applies to the case of a county court bailiff acting under a warrant wrongly issued (s). An act is to be regarded as done " in pursuance of" a statute, if the doer had a reasonable and bond fide belief that he was so acting {t)

See Bodea v. Smith (1849), 18 L. J. (c. P.) 121. See Pollock's Act, 1842 (5 & 6 Yict. c. 97), s. 4, note {d), supra. {i) Att.-Gen. v. Company of Proprietors of Margate Pier and Harhour Co., Lyles v. Southend -on- Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 K. B. 1 [1900] 1 Gh. 749 Parker v. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501. ik) The Ydun, [1899] P. 236. Lyles v. Southend(/) Parker v. London County Council, [1904] 2 K. B. 501 on-Sea Corporation, [1905] 2 B. 1. (m) Toms v. Clacton Urban District Council (1898), 62 J. P. 505. {n) Reid v. Blisland School Board (1901), 17 T. L. E. 626. (o) Ambler y. Bradford Corporation, [1902] 2 Ch, 585. [p) But not independent contractors. See Tilling, Ltd. v. Dick Kerr & Co., Ltd., [1905] 1 K. B. 562 Kent County Council v. Folkestone Corporation, [1905] 1 K. B. 620. Salisbury v. Gould (1904), 68 {q) Greenwell v. Hoiuell, [1900] 1 Q. B. 535 J. P. 158 (medical officer of health). (r) Humphriss v. Worwood (1895), 64 L. J. (q. b.) 437. [s] Tarley v. Daw (1906), 94 L. T. 216. {t) Eazeldine v. Grove Lea v. Facey (1887), 19 Q. B. D. (1842), 3 Q. B. 997 352, 356; Agnew v. Jobson (1877), 47 L. J. (m. c.) 67, 68; Heath v. Brewer {g) [h)





K