UK's Animal Welfare Bill

New plans to overhaul pet abuse laws in England and Wales have been recently unveiled by the British Government. The Animal Welfare Bill is the first review of animal/pet laws in 94 years.

It proposes tougher penalties for neglect and cruelty. These include fines of up to £20,000, a maximum jail term of 51 weeks and a lifetime ban on some owners keeping pets.

The new legislation also proposes a new welfare offence. The offence places a 'duty of care' on pet owners to provide for their animals' basic needs such as adequate food and water, veterinary treatment and an appropriate environment in which to live.

Organisations such as the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) will be given more powers to intervene if they suspect a pet is being neglected. The RSPCA hails the Bill as a breakthrough in the fight against animal cruelty. RSPCA director general, Jackie Ballard, said: "The new welfare offence will for the first time protect thousands of animals from enduring serious ongoing neglect each year, by legally obliging owners to care for them properly, something the RSPCA has been campaigning on for many, many years."

The bill replaces the Protection of Animals Act that was first passed in 1911. This law was designed to prevent outright cruelty to animals. The new bill will bring more than 20 pieces of legislation into one.

Justice Andrew Phang As Judge of Appeal

Just after learning about the death of Justice Lai Kew Chai, I then heard about the elevation of Justice Andrew Phang to the Court of Appeal. That is a climb at breath taking speed. Congrats to him.

I just read Justice Phang's decision in Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator. The reason why this case is interesting - Prof Coote's classic work "Exception Clauses" (Sweet & Maxwell, 1964) was cited. Prof Coote's analysis on exception clauses, notwithstanding its age, is still relevant in today's jurisprudence.

Coming back to Emjay v Skylift, the case concerns a limitation of liability clause. The issue is whether such a clause can be raised when dealing with assessment of damages (after interlocutory judgment has been entered), if it has not been raised earlier in pleadings.

Justice Phang held "No". He said "In any event, the consideration of a limitation of liability clause seems to me to be a logically prior inquiry to that of the assessment of damages. If so, then, as I have just mentioned, such a clause deals, in the final analysis, with the issue of liability, and not the quantum of damages."