http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2016/18.html  is of interest as an example of high level consideration of a liability for compensation created by statute. While it is not analysed under the rubric of “breach of statutory duty” (BSD), mainly because the relevant liability arises on the face of the statute rather than having to be implied, the decision provides a good example of how courts should approach the interpretation of a statutory tort obligation. 

In essence, as I have argued elsewhere, the main question as to the extent of the liability has to be resolved as a question of statutory interpretation. The statute, the Riot (Damages) Act 1886, s 2(1), creates a liability to pay compensation to “any person who has sustained loss” as a result of a riot. The question at issue was whether “loss” included not just the damage to the building concerned or its contents, but consequential loss suffered as a result of interruption of business, etc. While the term on its own would have been apt to cover consequential loss if viewed as a part of the general law of torts, Lord Hodge (for the court) said that on consideration of the history of the statute it was intended to be a “self-contained statutory scheme” (see [34]) which was not designed to mirror the common law, but had to be read on its own terms. In that context it allowed compensation for physical damage to property, but not for consequential economic loss. This was derived from the history of previous legislation and how it had been read by the courts in the past, including the fact that it already clearly excluded some forms of loss from its scope (personal injury was not covered, for example) and allowed reduction of compensation in light of a broad assessment of the conduct of the claimant.

Regards

Neil