P was a bookmaker who claimed that D had breached their statutory duty of giving him a convenient place from which to trade and claimed lost earnings for breach of statutory duty. HL denied that the duty was aimed to give a private right of action.
Lord Simonds: Whether a breach of statutory duty gives rise to a private action depends on “consideration of the whole Act and the circumstances, including the pre-existing law”. The other lords concur with him that “if a statutory duty is prescribed but no remedy by way of penalty or otherwise for its breach is imposed, it can be assumed that a right of civil action accrues to the person who is damnified by the breach.” Otherwise the act would be impotent. Also the inadequacy of punishment might suggest an alternative right of private action is established, as in Groves. However this is not the case here.