Upon what basis can an implied cause of action be recognized?

The correct answer focuses on the concept of an implied cause of action, which arises when a court deduces that a statute or policy allows individuals the right to sue, even though the statute does not expressly provide for such a right. This often occurs when explicit legislation is absent from a particular context, signaling that legislative intent has not fully addressed the issue.

In many instances, courts will look to the purpose and structure of existing laws to infer that an implied right exists for individuals who might suffer harm related to those laws. The absence of explicit legislation can thus create a situation where courts interpret the intent behind statutes or public policies in a way that allows for a legal avenue to hold parties accountable.

While clear legislative intent might lead to the recognition of a cause of action, it is the lack of specific legislative language that often prompts the necessity for the judiciary to step in and determine whether such an implied right should be acknowledged. The existence of prior case law could provide some context but does not independently justify the recognition of an implied cause of action. Similarly, collective bargaining agreements are typically confined to the realm of labor law and may not apply broadly to the concept of implied causes of action in civil procedures.