I was wondering if anyone knows of a judgment where the factual scenario is something akin to this: 

1) A has caused damage to B, and B wishes to establish that A owes him, and has beached, a duty of care. 

2) A has certain statutory/regulatory duties imposed on him, but is in all respects a private rather than public entity (e.g. A is a private building inspector, but there is a Building Inspectors' Act that requires building inspectors to inspect foundations). 

3) The damage caused to B falls outside A's statutory/regulatory duties (e.g. A inspects the foundations of C's house, but fails to inspect the roof, and therefore fails to spot a loose tile, which subsequently falls and kills B, C's neighbour). 

4) There is no contract between A and B (see example above).

5) A argues that he owes no duty of care at common law because his duties have been clearly defined by statute.

I am not particularly concerned whether or not A is held to owe a common law duty of care to B. What I am interested in is the discussion of A's possible common law duty against the background of his statutory duties. In English law, the interaction between statutory duties and negligence liability seems to have been discussed mainly with regard to public bodies, as in X v Bedfordshire CC, Gorringe v Calderdale and Stovin v Wise (D&F Estates v Church Commissioners for England is perhaps an exception, though the discussion there on the effect of the Defective Premises Act 1972 was rather scanty and the damage was purely economic rather than physical). I would be grateful if someone could point me to some authority, judicial or academic, where this issue is explored in greater detail.

Many thanks,

Colin