Client Alert: Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

On Thursday 12th February, the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Bill (SARAH) received Royal Assent.

The Bill was originally drafted in response to public concern over volunteering, undertaking activities for the wider social benefit and intervening in an emergency situation. This was specifically with regard to the risk (perceived or otherwise) of being sued if something were to go wrong and someone was injured or their property damaged.

Examples of this have been cited during the passage of the Bill have included clearing snow in winter, being involved in the running of the village fete or similar, or intervening in an emergency situation with the genuine intent of helping someone whilst putting one’s own personal interest to one side.

The Government have also suggested that the Act will provide greater protection to small business owners and others who face speculative or spurious claims in negligence, even if they have taken a responsible approach to safety training and procedures. Only time and experience will tell if this assertion is indeed correct.

The Act will apply when a court, in considering a claim that a person was negligent or in breach of a statutory duty, has to determine the steps that the personal was required to take to meet a standard of care. This is set out in the Act as follows:

Social Action: The court must have regard as to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting for the benefit of society or any of its members.

Responsibility: The court must have regard as to whether the person, in carrying out the activity in the course of which the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred, demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or other interests of others.

Heroism: The court must have regard as to whether the alleged negligence or breach of statutory duty occurred when the person was acting heroically by intervening in an emergency to assist an individual in danger and without regard to the person’s own safety or other interest.

So, what the Act seeks to achieve is to effectively moderate the existing duty of care for those engaged in such activities and where the individual concerned was behaving in a predominantly responsible manner and for the benefit of others.

Keoghs View

We have always regarded this piece of legislation as a populist Bill designed or the run up to the election. The Bill does little to build upon the concept of “desirable activity” introduced by the previous Labour Government when they had similar ambitions with the Compensation Act 2006. That has proved to be a damp squib, with defendants rarely (if ever) resorting to the Act to try and defend or mitigate a claim.

The Bill has however, generated some of the most entertaining debate in the Lords for quite some time. Lord Pannick summed up the Bill at the end of its Third Reading in the Lords with a damming indictment... “This always was and it remains the most ridiculous piece of legislation approved by Parliament in a very long time ... a text that would barely muster a pass mark in GCSE legal studies ... a pitiful creature of a Bill”.

As ever with such legislation, it should be borne in mind in the right circumstances and its deployment will be about correct case selection and using the Act to test the boundaries with the judiciary. We do not envisage however, the Act having any significant or meaningful impact.

The Government is currently setting arrangements for a Commencement Order to bring the Act into force. We would expect that to take place in the next six weeks prior to Parliament being dissolved for the May election.