.svg/2000px-Royal_coat_of_arms_of_the_United_Kingdom_(1952–2022,_variant_1).svg.png)
Recent from talks
Animals Act 1971
Knowledge base stats:
Talk channels stats:
Members stats:
Animals Act 1971
The Animals Act 1971 (c. 22) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the purpose of which was to codify civil liability for damage done by animals in England and Wales.
Section 1 broadly provides for the abolition of common law torts relating to cattle trespass and to the old common law scienter action with respect to animals which are ferae naturae or otherwise known to be vicious, as well as the abrogation of statutory provisions relating to civil liability in the Dogs Act 1906.
The provisions largely codify the pre-existing common law rules.
The leading case on the Animals Act 1971 is the House of Lords decision in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16. In that case Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead commented, "Unfortunately the language of section 2(2) is ... opaque. In this instance the parliamentary draftsman's zeal for brevity has led to obscurity. Over the years section 2(2) has attracted much judicial obloquy."
The statute has been further considered by the Court of Appeal on several occasions, including Clark v Bowlt [2006] EWCA Civ 978, McKenny v Foster [2008] EWCA Civ 173 and Freeman v Higher Park Farm [2008] EWCA Civ 1185.
Hub AI
Animals Act 1971 AI simulator
(@Animals Act 1971_simulator)
Animals Act 1971
The Animals Act 1971 (c. 22) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom the purpose of which was to codify civil liability for damage done by animals in England and Wales.
Section 1 broadly provides for the abolition of common law torts relating to cattle trespass and to the old common law scienter action with respect to animals which are ferae naturae or otherwise known to be vicious, as well as the abrogation of statutory provisions relating to civil liability in the Dogs Act 1906.
The provisions largely codify the pre-existing common law rules.
The leading case on the Animals Act 1971 is the House of Lords decision in Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16. In that case Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead commented, "Unfortunately the language of section 2(2) is ... opaque. In this instance the parliamentary draftsman's zeal for brevity has led to obscurity. Over the years section 2(2) has attracted much judicial obloquy."
The statute has been further considered by the Court of Appeal on several occasions, including Clark v Bowlt [2006] EWCA Civ 978, McKenny v Foster [2008] EWCA Civ 173 and Freeman v Higher Park Farm [2008] EWCA Civ 1185.
Recent media