Duty of Care
HXA V SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL and YXA V WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL
[2022] EWCA Civ 1196
Both claimants were involved with social services for a number of years whilst they remained at home with their families and continued to suffer abuse. The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether, at any stage in its contact with the children, the local authorities could be said to have assumed responsibility for their welfare so that they owed the children a duty of care at common law. The deputy master in the case of HXA and the master in the case of YXA and Stacey J on the conjoined appeals against both decisions all decided that the local authorities could not be said to have assumed responsibility so as to owe a duty of care to the children. As a result, the claims were struck out. The Claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
[2022] EWCA Civ 1196
Both claimants were involved with social services for a number of years whilst they remained at home with their families and continued to suffer abuse. The issue for the Court of Appeal was whether, at any stage in its contact with the children, the local authorities could be said to have assumed responsibility for their welfare so that they owed the children a duty of care at common law. The deputy master in the case of HXA and the master in the case of YXA and Stacey J on the conjoined appeals against both decisions all decided that the local authorities could not be said to have assumed responsibility so as to owe a duty of care to the children. As a result, the claims were struck out. The Claimants appealed to the Court of Appeal.
HXA V SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL AND YXA V WOLVERHAMPTON CITY COUNCIL
[2021] EWHC 2974 (QB)
These were two Claimants who were bringing proceedings against local authorities. YXA alleged that the local authority had failed to protect him from abuse by his parents, and HXA alleged that the local authority had failed to protect her from abuse by her mother and a Mr A. In HXA's case it was said that the Defendant should have applied for a care order for her in order to comply with the duty and in YXA's case compliance with the duty would have involved an application for a care order being made considerably sooner than it was.
[2021] EWHC 2974 (QB)
These were two Claimants who were bringing proceedings against local authorities. YXA alleged that the local authority had failed to protect him from abuse by his parents, and HXA alleged that the local authority had failed to protect her from abuse by her mother and a Mr A. In HXA's case it was said that the Defendant should have applied for a care order for her in order to comply with the duty and in YXA's case compliance with the duty would have involved an application for a care order being made considerably sooner than it was.
HXA AND SXA V SURREY COUNTY COUNCIL [2021] EWHC 250
This was a strike out application by the Defendant to the court to strike out the majority of the First Claimant’s claim whilst the Second Claimant’s claim was stayed pending the outcome of the First Claimant’s claim. The Claimants were half siblings born in 1988 and 1993. Their childhoods were characterized by abuse and neglect perpetrated by their mother and one of their mother’s partners. In 2009, that partner was convicted of raping the Claimant and the mother was convicted of indecently assaulting the First Claimant. The Claimant sought damages against the local authority in which they were brought up, which they alleged would have been avoided or lessened if the Defendant’s social workers had exercised reasonable care. The strike out application did not relate to an alleged failure by school staff employed by the Defendant, to act upon a report of abuse by the First Claimant. It did relate to all the other allegations of negligence made by the First Claimant.
This was a strike out application by the Defendant to the court to strike out the majority of the First Claimant’s claim whilst the Second Claimant’s claim was stayed pending the outcome of the First Claimant’s claim. The Claimants were half siblings born in 1988 and 1993. Their childhoods were characterized by abuse and neglect perpetrated by their mother and one of their mother’s partners. In 2009, that partner was convicted of raping the Claimant and the mother was convicted of indecently assaulting the First Claimant. The Claimant sought damages against the local authority in which they were brought up, which they alleged would have been avoided or lessened if the Defendant’s social workers had exercised reasonable care. The strike out application did not relate to an alleged failure by school staff employed by the Defendant, to act upon a report of abuse by the First Claimant. It did relate to all the other allegations of negligence made by the First Claimant.
DFX AND OTHERS V COVENTRY CITY COUNCIL [2021] EWHC 1382 (QB)
The four Claimants were siblings, who alleged that they each suffered abuse, including sexual abuse and neglect whilst in the care of their parents prior to 2010. They brought an action against the local authority in negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Article 8 claim was abandoned at trial.
The four Claimants were siblings, who alleged that they each suffered abuse, including sexual abuse and neglect whilst in the care of their parents prior to 2010. They brought an action against the local authority in negligence and under the Human Rights Act 1998 for breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Article 8 claim was abandoned at trial.
A V ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ST HELENA [2019] SHSC 1
The Claimant claimed that during the course of her childhood she was persistently subjected to serious sexual abuse by B and that the social services department of the St Helena Government were aware of the very real possibility that this was happening, but did not protect her from abuse. The Defendant applied to strike out the case on the grounds that there was no cause of action because they did not owe the Claimant a common law duty of care.
The Claimant claimed that during the course of her childhood she was persistently subjected to serious sexual abuse by B and that the social services department of the St Helena Government were aware of the very real possibility that this was happening, but did not protect her from abuse. The Defendant applied to strike out the case on the grounds that there was no cause of action because they did not owe the Claimant a common law duty of care.
CN AND GN V POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL [2019] UKSC 25
The Claimants were two children (one of whom was severely disabled) who alleged that the Defendant local
authority had negligently failed to take the necessary steps to safeguard them. They and their mother were the
target of prolonged abuse perpetrated by members of a neighbouring family between 2006 and 2011. The Court of
Appeal in CN & GN v Poole Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 2185 decided that the local authority owed them no
duty of care in these circumstances and they appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE OF THE METROPOLIS V DSD AND NBV [2018] UKSC 11
John Worboys, a taxi driver committed a series of sexual offences against women between 2003 and 2008. DSD was among his first victims and the other party, NBV became his victim in July 2007. Many others were attacked by him between 2003 and 2007 and yet more after NBV was assaulted.DSD and NBV brought proceedings against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for the alleged failure of the police to conduct effective investigations into Worboys’ crimes. The claims were brought under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It was alleged that the police failures in the investigation of the crimes committed by Worboys constituted a violation of their rights under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." At first instance, the Claimants succeeded. An appeal by the MPS was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and now, the MPS appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
John Worboys, a taxi driver committed a series of sexual offences against women between 2003 and 2008. DSD was among his first victims and the other party, NBV became his victim in July 2007. Many others were attacked by him between 2003 and 2007 and yet more after NBV was assaulted.DSD and NBV brought proceedings against the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) for the alleged failure of the police to conduct effective investigations into Worboys’ crimes. The claims were brought under sections 7 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). It was alleged that the police failures in the investigation of the crimes committed by Worboys constituted a violation of their rights under article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This provides that "[n]o one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." At first instance, the Claimants succeeded. An appeal by the MPS was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and now, the MPS appealed to the UK Supreme Court.
XPQ V THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM
[2018] EWHC 1391 (QB)
TThe Claimant had been born in Ghana. Either in late adolescence or early adulthood, she came to the UK. She had been told that she could seek education and work, but instead she was forced into prostitution.The UK set up a National Referral Mechanism ("NRM") with effect from 1st. April 2009, which identified victims of trafficking and supported them. In the Claimant’s case, that decision was made whilst she was in detention for having used a false document. She was released from detention and put in a safe house. She was also granted temporary leave to remain in the UK.
[2018] EWHC 1391 (QB)
TThe Claimant had been born in Ghana. Either in late adolescence or early adulthood, she came to the UK. She had been told that she could seek education and work, but instead she was forced into prostitution.The UK set up a National Referral Mechanism ("NRM") with effect from 1st. April 2009, which identified victims of trafficking and supported them. In the Claimant’s case, that decision was made whilst she was in detention for having used a false document. She was released from detention and put in a safe house. She was also granted temporary leave to remain in the UK.
CN & GN V POOLE BOROUGH COUNCIL [2017] EWCA Civ 2185
The Claimants were two children (one of whom was severely disabled) who alleged that the Defendant local authority had negligently failed to take appropriate and necessary steps to safeguard them. They were the target of prolonged abuse perpetrated by members of a family who lived on the estate on which they were housed by the Defendant between May 2006 and December 2011.
The Claimants were two children (one of whom was severely disabled) who alleged that the Defendant local authority had negligently failed to take appropriate and necessary steps to safeguard them. They were the target of prolonged abuse perpetrated by members of a family who lived on the estate on which they were housed by the Defendant between May 2006 and December 2011.
RATHBAND V ST GEORGE’S HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST [2015] EWHC 181
The Claimant, PC Rathband, a serving police officer was shot in the head by Raoul Moat, a criminal who had shot and injured his former partner and killed her current partner. He suffered horrific injuries including total blindness. Later he committed suicide having begun an action against Northumbria police. The Claimant continued the action, saying that the police owed the police constable a duty of care to warn him of the threats made by Moat, that they were negligent in failing to issue an immediate warning, and that if an appropriate warning had been issued, he would not have been exposed to the danger which Raoul Moat presented.
The Claimant, PC Rathband, a serving police officer was shot in the head by Raoul Moat, a criminal who had shot and injured his former partner and killed her current partner. He suffered horrific injuries including total blindness. Later he committed suicide having begun an action against Northumbria police. The Claimant continued the action, saying that the police owed the police constable a duty of care to warn him of the threats made by Moat, that they were negligent in failing to issue an immediate warning, and that if an appropriate warning had been issued, he would not have been exposed to the danger which Raoul Moat presented.
A V WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
[2015] EWHC 1722 (QB)
The Claimant was sexually abused by one Peter Stewart (now deceased) between 1989 and 1994 when she was aged between 4 and 9. He was a ministerial servant in the Jehovah’s Witnesses and was subsequently convicted of abusing another child and a young female relative. Quantum had been agreed subject to liability.
ROBINSON V WEST YORKSHIRE POLICE [2014] EWCA Civ 15
The Claimant was walking down a relatively busy street in Huddersfield when she became caught up in the arrest of a drug dealer. She was knocked to the ground and injured. She sued the local Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. The question for the court was the extent to which the Chief Constable was liable, if at all, in negligence for what happened to her.The allegedly negligent officer was on an unrelated errand when he spotted a man dealing in 'Class A' drugs. He contacted a senior officer about what he should do. It was agreed he should make an arrest as quickly as possible, and preferably whilst Williams was still in possession of the drugs. He called for back up and considered possible locations for the arrest. He concluded it had to be on the street.
The Claimant was walking down a relatively busy street in Huddersfield when she became caught up in the arrest of a drug dealer. She was knocked to the ground and injured. She sued the local Chief Constable for damages for personal injury. The question for the court was the extent to which the Chief Constable was liable, if at all, in negligence for what happened to her.The allegedly negligent officer was on an unrelated errand when he spotted a man dealing in 'Class A' drugs. He contacted a senior officer about what he should do. It was agreed he should make an arrest as quickly as possible, and preferably whilst Williams was still in possession of the drugs. He called for back up and considered possible locations for the arrest. He concluded it had to be on the street.
NA V NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] EWHC 4005 (QB)
First, she says that while in her mother's care she suffered physical and emotional abuse by her mother and her mother's partner, that the defendant failed in the common law duty of care which it owed her by failing either to remove her from her mother's care at a young age or to put in place measures to protect her from the abuse which she suffered. Second, she said while in the foster care of Mr and Mrs A between March 1985 and March 1986 when she was aged 7 and 8, she suffered physical and emotional abuse by Mrs A for which the defendant is responsible in law.
First, she says that while in her mother's care she suffered physical and emotional abuse by her mother and her mother's partner, that the defendant failed in the common law duty of care which it owed her by failing either to remove her from her mother's care at a young age or to put in place measures to protect her from the abuse which she suffered. Second, she said while in the foster care of Mr and Mrs A between March 1985 and March 1986 when she was aged 7 and 8, she suffered physical and emotional abuse by Mrs A for which the defendant is responsible in law.
JB AND BB V LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL NOTTINGHAM COUNTY COURT 6TH JUNE 2014 UNREPORTED
There had initially been two Claimants in this action. The first was L and the second B, who was L’s father. They alleged misfeasance in public office, conspiracy to injure and negligence against the First and Second Defendants and the police. The claims arose out of investigations carried by local authority social workers and the police into allegations of sexual abuse said to have been inflicted on L by her father, B. The allegations were made by L’s mother, S when L was very young.
There had initially been two Claimants in this action. The first was L and the second B, who was L’s father. They alleged misfeasance in public office, conspiracy to injure and negligence against the First and Second Defendants and the police. The claims arose out of investigations carried by local authority social workers and the police into allegations of sexual abuse said to have been inflicted on L by her father, B. The allegations were made by L’s mother, S when L was very young.
FD V CAFCASS [2014] EWHC 1619 QB
The Claimant (who was unrepresented) claimed damages against the Defendant service for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and for a breach of his right to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998. He claimed that as a result of the negligent advice and support given by Cafcass and, in particular, its Family Support Worker at a hearing on 3 February 2009, the Court made an order which effectively deprived him of continuing contact with his son.
The Claimant (who was unrepresented) claimed damages against the Defendant service for negligence, misfeasance in public office, and for a breach of his right to a family life under article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and under the Human Rights Act 1998. He claimed that as a result of the negligent advice and support given by Cafcass and, in particular, its Family Support Worker at a hearing on 3 February 2009, the Court made an order which effectively deprived him of continuing contact with his son.
WOODLAND V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL [2013] EWHC 1711 (QB)B
The Claimant suffered severe hypoxic injuries whilst swimming in a pool run by the Fifth Defendant, Basildon Council. There was a life guard (the Third Defendant) and a swimming teacher (the Second Defendant), who was in turn a member of the Swimming Teachers’ Association (the First Defendant). The Second Defendant was an independent contractor to the Claimant’s school, which was run by the Fourth Defendant, Essex County Council.
The Claimant suffered severe hypoxic injuries whilst swimming in a pool run by the Fifth Defendant, Basildon Council. There was a life guard (the Third Defendant) and a swimming teacher (the Second Defendant), who was in turn a member of the Swimming Teachers’ Association (the First Defendant). The Second Defendant was an independent contractor to the Claimant’s school, which was run by the Fourth Defendant, Essex County Council.
XVW & YZA v GRAVESEND GRAMMAR SCHOOLS FOR GIRLS AND ADVENTURE LIFE SIGNS LTD [2012] EWHC 575 (QB)
The Claimants were two students who set off on a school trip to Belize in 2005, and were raped by a local man who was the apparent joint owner of the farm/resort where they had been staying. They sued the school and the second Defendant, a specialist company which helped organise the expedition.
On their arrival in Belize, there was a change of plan.
The Claimants were two students who set off on a school trip to Belize in 2005, and were raped by a local man who was the apparent joint owner of the farm/resort where they had been staying. They sued the school and the second Defendant, a specialist company which helped organise the expedition.
On their arrival in Belize, there was a change of plan.
ABB AND OTHERS V MILTON KEYNES COUNCIL [2011] EWHC 2745 (QB) ; PIERCE V DONCASTER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL [2008] EWCA Civ 1416
FACTS:-The Claimants were three brothers and a sister, who were living in the area occupied by the Defendant local authority. Throughout their childhood each of the Claimants was the victim of sustained and serious sexual abuse, perpetrated by their father, between about 1990 and 2005. They sued the local authority for failure to take them into care.
FACTS:-The Claimants were three brothers and a sister, who were living in the area occupied by the Defendant local authority. Throughout their childhood each of the Claimants was the victim of sustained and serious sexual abuse, perpetrated by their father, between about 1990 and 2005. They sued the local authority for failure to take them into care.
WEBSTER V RIDGEWAY FOUNDATION SCHOOL [2010] EWHC 318 (QB)
In this case two boys agreed to have a fight at a school. The fight ended up in one boy being seriously injured, and he brought a claim against the school. Evidence was adduced to show that the school had failed in a number of respects to do all that a school should in relation to discipline. In particular the school had not built a perimeter fence to prevent people from outside the school entering the school grounds. However, in a lengthy judgment, Nicol J dismissed the claim. Whilst he found that the school did owe the claimant a duty of care to take reasonable care to keep him reasonably safe while he was on the school's premises, there was no breach of that duty. In relation to the multiple allegations of negligence, the claimant could not demonstrate the necessary causal link between the things that the school did not do and the injuries that the claimant received. Moreover, those injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of some of the alleged omissions.
In this case two boys agreed to have a fight at a school. The fight ended up in one boy being seriously injured, and he brought a claim against the school. Evidence was adduced to show that the school had failed in a number of respects to do all that a school should in relation to discipline. In particular the school had not built a perimeter fence to prevent people from outside the school entering the school grounds. However, in a lengthy judgment, Nicol J dismissed the claim. Whilst he found that the school did owe the claimant a duty of care to take reasonable care to keep him reasonably safe while he was on the school's premises, there was no breach of that duty. In relation to the multiple allegations of negligence, the claimant could not demonstrate the necessary causal link between the things that the school did not do and the injuries that the claimant received. Moreover, those injuries were not a foreseeable consequence of some of the alleged omissions.
XA V YA [2010] EWHC 1983 (QB)
The Claimant was a 32 year old man who claimed that during his childhood his mother had assaulted him, was responsible jointly with his father for assaults upon him and negligently failed to protect him from his father. As a result he suffered physical injury and long term psychiatric damage. He also sought aggravated damages.
His brother and sister had already brought proceedings against his father and obtained awards of damages. The father, who lived in Eire took no part in the proceedings and enforcement proceedings were still current against him in that jurisdiction.
The Claimant was a 32 year old man who claimed that during his childhood his mother had assaulted him, was responsible jointly with his father for assaults upon him and negligently failed to protect him from his father. As a result he suffered physical injury and long term psychiatric damage. He also sought aggravated damages.
His brother and sister had already brought proceedings against his father and obtained awards of damages. The father, who lived in Eire took no part in the proceedings and enforcement proceedings were still current against him in that jurisdiction.
MERTHYR TYDFIL COUNTY BOROUGH COUNCIL V C [2010] EWHC Civ 62
The Claimant had two children born in 1996 and 1998, and they lived within the area for which the Defendant was obliged to provide social services. The Claimant sought damages for a psychiatric condition, which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the Defendant in failing properly to deal with reports made by C in relation to sexual abuse of A and B by another child.
The Claimant had two children born in 1996 and 1998, and they lived within the area for which the Defendant was obliged to provide social services. The Claimant sought damages for a psychiatric condition, which she alleged was caused by the negligence of the Defendant in failing properly to deal with reports made by C in relation to sexual abuse of A and B by another child.
MAGA (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND, THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR TO THE SUPREME COURT) V TRUSTEES OF THE BIRMINGHAM ARCHDIOCESE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [2010] EWCA Civ 256
The Claimant was abused as a boy by an assistant priest, Father Clonan, serving at a church in Coventry. He had suffered brain damage at birth, and was recognised as educationally subnormal. He could not read or write. Father Clonan had joined the Church in around 1972 and he had put a great deal of energy into starting up a disco, a social club and other clubs for young people. He also ran a number of football teams. He constructed a community centre in the curtilage of the church using his own construction firm.
The Claimant was abused as a boy by an assistant priest, Father Clonan, serving at a church in Coventry. He had suffered brain damage at birth, and was recognised as educationally subnormal. He could not read or write. Father Clonan had joined the Church in around 1972 and he had put a great deal of energy into starting up a disco, a social club and other clubs for young people. He also ran a number of football teams. He constructed a community centre in the curtilage of the church using his own construction firm.
X AND Y V LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW [2009] EWCA Civ 286
The Claimants were protected parties proceeding by their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor and claiming damages against the Defendant, the London Borough of Hounslow. X and Y were aged 44 and 38, and lived in a flat owned by the Defendant with Y’s two daughters, A and B aged 11 and 8. X, Y and A all had learning difficulties and the family had long standing involvement with social services.
The Claimants were protected parties proceeding by their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor and claiming damages against the Defendant, the London Borough of Hounslow. X and Y were aged 44 and 38, and lived in a flat owned by the Defendant with Y’s two daughters, A and B aged 11 and 8. X, Y and A all had learning difficulties and the family had long standing involvement with social services.
MITCHELL AND ANOTHER V GLASGOW CITY COUNCIL [2009] UKHL 11
In 2001, one James Mitchell was attacked by his next door neighbour, James Drummond and he died as a result of his injuries. Both men were tenants of the local housing authority. Mr Drummond had long been an anti-social neighbour. He had previously and had threatened to kill Mr Mitchell on numerous occasions. In 2001 the city council brought proceedings against Mr Drummond to evict him from his house. They then invited him to a meeting, which he attended but he became abusive.
In 2001, one James Mitchell was attacked by his next door neighbour, James Drummond and he died as a result of his injuries. Both men were tenants of the local housing authority. Mr Drummond had long been an anti-social neighbour. He had previously and had threatened to kill Mr Mitchell on numerous occasions. In 2001 the city council brought proceedings against Mr Drummond to evict him from his house. They then invited him to a meeting, which he attended but he became abusive.
MAGA (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND, THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR TO THE SUPREME COURT) V TRUSTEES OF THE BIRMINGHAM ARCHDIOCESE OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH [2009] EWHC 780 (QB)
The Claimant was abused as a boy by an assistant priest, Father Clonan, serving at a church in Coventry. He had suffered brain damage at birth, and was recognised as educationally subnormal. He could not read or write.
It was alleged that in 1974, a Father McTernan, Father’s Clonan’s immediate superior was informed by the parents of another boy, M, that M had been abused by Father Clonan, but he had taken no action. It was uncertain when the abuse of the Claimant began, but it was pleaded as occurring over a period of many months in about 1976.
The Claimant was abused as a boy by an assistant priest, Father Clonan, serving at a church in Coventry. He had suffered brain damage at birth, and was recognised as educationally subnormal. He could not read or write.
It was alleged that in 1974, a Father McTernan, Father’s Clonan’s immediate superior was informed by the parents of another boy, M, that M had been abused by Father Clonan, but he had taken no action. It was uncertain when the abuse of the Claimant began, but it was pleaded as occurring over a period of many months in about 1976.
B V READING BOROUGH COUNCIL, WOKINGHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL AND THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THAMES VALLEY POLICE [2009] EWHC 998 (QB)
There had initially been two Claimants in this action. The first was L and the second B, who was L’s father. They alleged misfeasance in public office, conspiracy to injure and negligence against the First and Second Defendants and the police. The claims arose out of investigations carried by local authority social workers and the police into allegations of sexual abuse said to have been inflicted on L by her father, B. The allegations were made by L’s mother, S when L was very young.
A V ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF WELLINGTON AND OTHERS [2009] 1 LRC 211
The Claimant was born in 1959. Due to an unstable family background, she was placed at the age of seven in 1968 at an orphanage run by the Sisters of Mercy and educated at a primary school. She alleged physical and emotional abuse whilst she was there.
X (1) Y (2) VERSUS THE LONDON BOROUGH OF HOUNSLOW [2008] EWHC 1168 (QB)
The Claimants were protected parties proceeding by their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor and claiming damages against the Defendant, the London Borough of Hounslow. X and Y were aged 44 and 38, and lived in a flat owned by the Defendant with Y’s two daughters, A and B aged 11 and 8. X, Y and A all had learning difficulties and the family had involvement with social services. X was assessed as being at risk of being exploited and abused, this being partly related to his friendly nature, trust of people and some impulsivity.
The Claimants were protected parties proceeding by their Litigation Friend, the Official Solicitor and claiming damages against the Defendant, the London Borough of Hounslow. X and Y were aged 44 and 38, and lived in a flat owned by the Defendant with Y’s two daughters, A and B aged 11 and 8. X, Y and A all had learning difficulties and the family had involvement with social services. X was assessed as being at risk of being exploited and abused, this being partly related to his friendly nature, trust of people and some impulsivity.
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE V VAN COLLE [2008] UKHL 50
These were two linked cases. In Van Colle, a threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle and culminated in the murder of Mr Van Colle by Mr Brougham. Brougham had been arrested in relation to theft of optical equipment, and he made a number of attempts to either threaten or bribe witnesses not to give evidence against him. These attempts included making direct threats against Mr Colle as well as setting light to his and other witnesses’ cars, as well as a witness’ business premises. These incidents were they were reported to the police. In the end Mr Van Colle was shot dead by Mr Brougham. A disciplinary tribunal found one policeman guilty of failing to perform his duties, in relation to improper approach to witnesses.
These were two linked cases. In Van Colle, a threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle and culminated in the murder of Mr Van Colle by Mr Brougham. Brougham had been arrested in relation to theft of optical equipment, and he made a number of attempts to either threaten or bribe witnesses not to give evidence against him. These attempts included making direct threats against Mr Colle as well as setting light to his and other witnesses’ cars, as well as a witness’ business premises. These incidents were they were reported to the police. In the end Mr Van Colle was shot dead by Mr Brougham. A disciplinary tribunal found one policeman guilty of failing to perform his duties, in relation to improper approach to witnesses.
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE V VAN COLLE [2007] EWCA Civ 325 AND [2008] EWCA Civ 39
These were two linked cases. In Van Colle, a threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle and culminated in the murder of Mr Giles by Mr Brougham. Brougham had been arrested in relation to theft of optical equipment, and he made a number of attempts to either threaten or bribe witnesses not to give evidence against him. These attempts included making direct threats against Mr Colle as well as setting light to his and other witnesses’ cars, and a witness’ business premises and they were reported to the police. In the end Mr Van Colle was shot dead by Mr Brougham.
These were two linked cases. In Van Colle, a threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle and culminated in the murder of Mr Giles by Mr Brougham. Brougham had been arrested in relation to theft of optical equipment, and he made a number of attempts to either threaten or bribe witnesses not to give evidence against him. These attempts included making direct threats against Mr Colle as well as setting light to his and other witnesses’ cars, and a witness’ business premises and they were reported to the police. In the end Mr Van Colle was shot dead by Mr Brougham.
CORR (ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS CORR) V IBC VEHICLES LIMITED [2008] UKHL 13
The deceased, Thomas Corr committed suicide on the 23rd May 2002 leaving a widow and two children. His death occurred nearly six years after he had been badly injured in a factory accident on the Defendant’s premises. Negligence and/or breach of statutory duty were admitted. He had been struck on the right hand side of his head, and most of his ear had been severed. He was disfigured, suffered persistent unsteadiness, mild tinnitus, severe headaches and difficulty in sleeping.
The deceased, Thomas Corr committed suicide on the 23rd May 2002 leaving a widow and two children. His death occurred nearly six years after he had been badly injured in a factory accident on the Defendant’s premises. Negligence and/or breach of statutory duty were admitted. He had been struck on the right hand side of his head, and most of his ear had been severed. He was disfigured, suffered persistent unsteadiness, mild tinnitus, severe headaches and difficulty in sleeping.
HINDS V LIVERPOOL COUNTY COURT AND OTHERS [2008] EWHC 665
The Claimant brought proceedings in relation to his three children, two of whom had been adopted and one taken into care. His complaints stemmed from dissatisfaction with various authorities and individuals whom he felt had let him down and breached his Human Rights, with the result that he had been deprived of his children for the last ten years. The claim against Liverpool County Court and Liverpool City Council stemmed from the care orders that had been made to take his children away.
The Claimant brought proceedings in relation to his three children, two of whom had been adopted and one taken into care. His complaints stemmed from dissatisfaction with various authorities and individuals whom he felt had let him down and breached his Human Rights, with the result that he had been deprived of his children for the last ten years. The claim against Liverpool County Court and Liverpool City Council stemmed from the care orders that had been made to take his children away.
RICHARD SMITH VERSUS HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2007] EWCA Civ 246
The Claimant was born on the 21st October 1978 and was educated in Hampshire between September 1986 and February 1993, being placed in a special school in 1987. In around September 1986, the Claimant’s teacher suspected that his failure to progress was due to some form of learning difficulty and the Claimant was referred to an educational psychologist, who told the Claimant’s mother that he was “right handed but left sided”. There was no report made available but the Claimant was transferred to a special school in September 1987.
The Claimant was born on the 21st October 1978 and was educated in Hampshire between September 1986 and February 1993, being placed in a special school in 1987. In around September 1986, the Claimant’s teacher suspected that his failure to progress was due to some form of learning difficulty and the Claimant was referred to an educational psychologist, who told the Claimant’s mother that he was “right handed but left sided”. There was no report made available but the Claimant was transferred to a special school in September 1987.
STEPHANIE LAWRENCE VERSUS PEMBROKESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2007] EWCA Civ 446
The Defendant’s social services became involved with the Claimant and her family in 1999 after an assessment on one of her children by a psychologist. That psychologist referred the family to the Defendant’s Child Protection Team expressing concerns about the safety of the Claimant and her children. However a meeting of the Team in March 2001, held without the Claimant’s knowledge concluded that there was no risk and her family should receive a plan of support. A Community Support Nurse was assigned to the family but she was replaced by someone who was unqualified “A”.
The Defendant’s social services became involved with the Claimant and her family in 1999 after an assessment on one of her children by a psychologist. That psychologist referred the family to the Defendant’s Child Protection Team expressing concerns about the safety of the Claimant and her children. However a meeting of the Team in March 2001, held without the Claimant’s knowledge concluded that there was no risk and her family should receive a plan of support. A Community Support Nurse was assigned to the family but she was replaced by someone who was unqualified “A”.
CHIEF CONSTABLE OF HERTFORDSHIRE POLICE V VAN COLLE [2007] EWCA Civ 325 AND [2008] EWCA Civ 39
These were two linked cases. In Van Colle, a threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle and culminated in the murder of Mr Giles by Mr Brougham. Brougham had been arrested in relation to theft of optical equipment, and he made a number of attempts to either threaten or bribe witnesses not to give evidence against him. These attempts included making direct threats against Mr Colle as well as setting light to his and other witnesses’ cars, and a witness’ business premises and they were reported to the police. In the end Mr Van Colle was shot dead by Mr Brougham.
These were two linked cases. In Van Colle, a threat was made by a man known in the case as Daniel Brougham against Giles Van Colle and culminated in the murder of Mr Giles by Mr Brougham. Brougham had been arrested in relation to theft of optical equipment, and he made a number of attempts to either threaten or bribe witnesses not to give evidence against him. These attempts included making direct threats against Mr Colle as well as setting light to his and other witnesses’ cars, and a witness’ business premises and they were reported to the police. In the end Mr Van Colle was shot dead by Mr Brougham.
B V READING BOROUGH COUNCIL (1) WOKINGHAM DISTRICT COUNCIL (2) THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF THAMES VALLEY POLICE (3) [2007] EWCA Civ 1313
There had initially been two Claimants in this action. The first was L and the second B, who was L’s father. They alleged misfeasance in public office, conspiracy to injure and negligence against the First and Second Defendants and the police. The claims arose out of investigations carried by local authority social workers and the police into allegations of sexual abuse said to have been inflicted on L by her father, B. The allegations were made by L’s mother, S when L was very young.
CORR (ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THOMAS CORR DECEASED) V IBC VEHICLES [2006] EWCA Civ 331
The deceased, Thomas Corr committed suicide on the 23rd May 2002 leaving a widow and two children. His death occurred nearly six years after he had been badly injured in a factory accident on the Defendant’s premises. Negligence and/or breach of statutory duty were admitted. He had been struck on the right hand side of his head, and most of his ear had been severed. He was disfigured, suffered persistent unsteadiness, mild tinnitus, severe headaches and difficulty in sleeping.
The deceased, Thomas Corr committed suicide on the 23rd May 2002 leaving a widow and two children. His death occurred nearly six years after he had been badly injured in a factory accident on the Defendant’s premises. Negligence and/or breach of statutory duty were admitted. He had been struck on the right hand side of his head, and most of his ear had been severed. He was disfigured, suffered persistent unsteadiness, mild tinnitus, severe headaches and difficulty in sleeping.
JD V EAST BERKSHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST AND OTHERS AND TWO OTHER ACTIONS [2005] UKHL 23
This judgment concerned three linked cases. D was the mother of a child (M), MAK was the father of a child, RK and another were the mother and father of a child, M. Each case involved accusations of abusing a child made against a parent by the professionals concerned for the welfare of that child and in each case the accusations proved to be unfounded.
This judgment concerned three linked cases. D was the mother of a child (M), MAK was the father of a child, RK and another were the mother and father of a child, M. Each case involved accusations of abusing a child made against a parent by the professionals concerned for the welfare of that child and in each case the accusations proved to be unfounded.
KR AND OTHERS VERSUS BRYN ALYN COMMUNITY (HOLDINGS) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE PLC [2003] EWCA Civ 85
This was an appeal brought by fourteen adults all whom claimed to have suffered sexual and/or physical abuse and/or emotional abuse between 1973 and 1991 whilst they were children in the care of the First Defendant’s care home in North Wales, the Bryn Alyn Community (“the Community”). The Second Defendant joined itself into the action to enable itself to protect its position as the First Defendant’s putative insurer.
This was an appeal brought by fourteen adults all whom claimed to have suffered sexual and/or physical abuse and/or emotional abuse between 1973 and 1991 whilst they were children in the care of the First Defendant’s care home in North Wales, the Bryn Alyn Community (“the Community”). The Second Defendant joined itself into the action to enable itself to protect its position as the First Defendant’s putative insurer.
D V EAST BERKSHIRE COMMUNITY HEALTH NHS TRUST, K AND ANOTHER V DEWSBURY HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST AND ANOTHER, K AND ANOTHER V OLDHAM NHS TRUST AND ANOTHER
[2003] EWCA CIV 1151
This judgment concerned three linked cases. D was the mother of a child (M), MAK was the father of a child, RK and another were the mother and father of a child, M. Each case involved accusations of abusing a child made against a parent by the professionals concerned for the welfare of that child and in each case the accusations proved to be unfounded.
[2003] EWCA CIV 1151
This judgment concerned three linked cases. D was the mother of a child (M), MAK was the father of a child, RK and another were the mother and father of a child, M. Each case involved accusations of abusing a child made against a parent by the professionals concerned for the welfare of that child and in each case the accusations proved to be unfounded.
A AND ANOTHER V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL [2003] EWCA Civ 1848
The Claimants were adoptive parents suing a local authority in relation to an adoptive child “William” who was placed with them 1996. William had extreme behavioural difficulties, which resulted in him assaulting his adoptive parents and hospitalising the mother. Both suffered psychiatric damages. Eventually he was placed in accommodation although he continued to be a part of the adoptive family.
W 1 – 6 V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [2000] UKHL 17
The Claimants, W1 and W2 were the parents of the Claimants W3 to W6, the children being one boy and three girls. All of the Claimants claimed damages fro personal injury caused by the negligence of the Defendant council and a social worker employed by the council. There were also claims in contract, for misfeasance in public office and negligent mis-statement but nothing turned on these directly in the appeal before the House of Lords.
The Claimants, W1 and W2 were the parents of the Claimants W3 to W6, the children being one boy and three girls. All of the Claimants claimed damages fro personal injury caused by the negligence of the Defendant council and a social worker employed by the council. There were also claims in contract, for misfeasance in public office and negligent mis-statement but nothing turned on these directly in the appeal before the House of Lords.
S V GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL; L V THE LONDON BOROUGH OF TOWER HAMLETS AND LONDON BOROUGH OF HAVERING [2000] EWCA Civ 72
The Claimants were children in the care of a local authority and living with their foster parents. Each claimed that they were sexually abused by their foster father and that as a consequence they had suffered physical and long term psychological damage. They claimed that the damage was caused by the negligence of the local authority who were responsible for placing them with their foster parents and for subsequently monitoring their placement. Each of the foster fathers was later convicted of sexual offences with children.
The Claimants were children in the care of a local authority and living with their foster parents. Each claimed that they were sexually abused by their foster father and that as a consequence they had suffered physical and long term psychological damage. They claimed that the damage was caused by the negligence of the local authority who were responsible for placing them with their foster parents and for subsequently monitoring their placement. Each of the foster fathers was later convicted of sexual offences with children.
PHELPS V LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON, ANDERTON V CLWYD COUNTY COUNCIL, IN RE G (A MINOR) BY HIS NEXT FRIEND, JARVIS v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2000] UKHL 47
These were four educational negligence cases. Three concerned children who were dyslexic and the fourth was a child suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. In Phelps there had been a trial where the Claimant succeeded but was struck out by the Court of Appeal. In two others, “G” and “Jarvis” there was an application to strike out under Order 18 Rule 19 as being an abuse of the process of the court or as disclosing no cause of action. In “G”, the court struck out the claim, but it was reinstated by the Court of Appeal. In Jarvis the judge did not strike out the claim in negligence, but the Court of Appeal struck it out.
These were four educational negligence cases. Three concerned children who were dyslexic and the fourth was a child suffering from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy. In Phelps there had been a trial where the Claimant succeeded but was struck out by the Court of Appeal. In two others, “G” and “Jarvis” there was an application to strike out under Order 18 Rule 19 as being an abuse of the process of the court or as disclosing no cause of action. In “G”, the court struck out the claim, but it was reinstated by the Court of Appeal. In Jarvis the judge did not strike out the claim in negligence, but the Court of Appeal struck it out.
BROOKS V REGINA, 2000 BCSC 735 (CanLII)
The Claimant was a foster child in the home of a married couple, Mr and Mrs P from May 1975 to June 1976. She had already been sexually abused by her natural father and after making complaints, she was taken into care by the provincial Ministry of Social Services and immediately placed with Mr and Mrs P. The Claimant claimed that Mrs P was often drunk and had little involvement with her.
BARRETT V LONDON BOROUGH OF ENFIELD [1999] UKHL 25
The Claimant was taken into care (because of an assault by his mother) at the age of 10 months by the Defendant and he remained in care until he was aged 17. He alleged that a duty of care was owed to him by the Defendant, which had failed to safeguard his welfare.
W 1 – 6 V ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL AND ANOTHER [1998] EWCA Civ 614
The Claimants, W1 and W2 were the parents of the Claimants W3 to W6, the children being one boy and three girls. All of the Claimants claimed damages for personal injury caused by the negligence of the Defendant council and a social worker employed by the council. The parents had been approved a specialist adolescent foster carers by the council but they expressly told the council that they were not willing to accept any child who was known or suspected of being a sexual abuser. This was because they had young children. The Council gave them oral assurances to that effect.
The Claimants, W1 and W2 were the parents of the Claimants W3 to W6, the children being one boy and three girls. All of the Claimants claimed damages for personal injury caused by the negligence of the Defendant council and a social worker employed by the council. The parents had been approved a specialist adolescent foster carers by the council but they expressly told the council that they were not willing to accept any child who was known or suspected of being a sexual abuser. This was because they had young children. The Council gave them oral assurances to that effect.
PHELPS V LONDON BOROUGH OF HILLINGDON [1998] EWCA Civ 1686
The Claimant was born on the 30th December 1973. In September 1978, she attended Hayes Park Infant School. Towards the end of 1980, she was referred to the School Psychological Service for lack of educational progress and was seen by an educational psychologist, who confirmed that she was underfunctioning and recommended “time, patience, interest and praise”. The Claimant was also referred to the Child Guidance Clinic and seen by a Mrs Jones, a psychiatric social worker and a Dr Urquart. On the 19th February 1981, Dr Urquart wrote to the Claimant’s GP, recommending psychotherapy.
The Claimant was born on the 30th December 1973. In September 1978, she attended Hayes Park Infant School. Towards the end of 1980, she was referred to the School Psychological Service for lack of educational progress and was seen by an educational psychologist, who confirmed that she was underfunctioning and recommended “time, patience, interest and praise”. The Claimant was also referred to the Child Guidance Clinic and seen by a Mrs Jones, a psychiatric social worker and a Dr Urquart. On the 19th February 1981, Dr Urquart wrote to the Claimant’s GP, recommending psychotherapy.
H V NORFOLK [1997] 1 FLR 384
The Claimant had been taken into care at the age of 4 and placed with foster parents until he was 14. He alleged that he had been physically and sexually abused by his foster-father and that the council had been negligent in failing to supervise his placement, to investigate reports of abuse and to remove him from foster care. His claim was struck out at first instance on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, following the authority of X v Bedfordshire County Council [1999] 2 AC 633. The Claimant applied for leave to appeal against this order.
The Claimant had been taken into care at the age of 4 and placed with foster parents until he was 14. He alleged that he had been physically and sexually abused by his foster-father and that the council had been negligent in failing to supervise his placement, to investigate reports of abuse and to remove him from foster care. His claim was struck out at first instance on the grounds that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action, following the authority of X v Bedfordshire County Council [1999] 2 AC 633. The Claimant applied for leave to appeal against this order.
X (MINORS) V BEDFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, M (A MINOR) AND ANOTHER V NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL AND OTHERS, E (A MINOR) V DORSET COUNTY COUNCIL, CHRISTMAS V HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL, KEATING V BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL [1995] 3 All ER 353
These were five linked appeals to the House of Lords. In X v Bedfordshire, five Claimants who were born between 1982 and 1990 claimed damages for personal injury arising out of breach of statutory duty and negligence by the Defendant council. They alleged that between 1987 and 1992 they had suffered parental abuse and neglect and that the council had known of this but had failed to investigate or protect them from further harm. They relied upon the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Child Care Act 1980 and the Children Act 1989. The eldest child was born in October 1982 and the youngest in May 1990.
These were five linked appeals to the House of Lords. In X v Bedfordshire, five Claimants who were born between 1982 and 1990 claimed damages for personal injury arising out of breach of statutory duty and negligence by the Defendant council. They alleged that between 1987 and 1992 they had suffered parental abuse and neglect and that the council had known of this but had failed to investigate or protect them from further harm. They relied upon the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, the Child Care Act 1980 and the Children Act 1989. The eldest child was born in October 1982 and the youngest in May 1990.
SURTEES V KINGSTON UPON THAMES BOROUGH COUNCIL
[1991] 2 FLR 559
The Claimant suffered an accident in August 1966, some 23 years before the date of trial, when she was 2 years of age. She had been placed in the foster care of Mr and Mrs H by the First Defendant, a local authority. The skin on the bottom of her left foot had been completely burnt off after immersion. She herself had no memory of what had happened. She brought a claim against the local authority, based on the proposition that she should not have been fostered to the foster parents and that there was negligence on the part of the local authority in failing to supervise or visit the Claimant in her placement.
[1991] 2 FLR 559
The Claimant suffered an accident in August 1966, some 23 years before the date of trial, when she was 2 years of age. She had been placed in the foster care of Mr and Mrs H by the First Defendant, a local authority. The skin on the bottom of her left foot had been completely burnt off after immersion. She herself had no memory of what had happened. She brought a claim against the local authority, based on the proposition that she should not have been fostered to the foster parents and that there was negligence on the part of the local authority in failing to supervise or visit the Claimant in her placement.
HILL V CHIEF CONSTABLE OF WEST YORKSHIRE [1987] UKHL 12
This case centered on the murders committed by Peter Sutcliffe in West Yorkshire. Between 1975 and 1980 he murdered thirteen women and attempted to murder eight more. His last victim was a student named Jacqueline Hill, who was murdered in Leeds in 1980. Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981 and convicted of her murder and killing others.The Claimant was Miss Hill’s mother claiming for loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering. Section 48(1) of the Police Act 1964 said that the chief officer of police for any police area would be liable in respects of torts committed by constables under his direction.
This case centered on the murders committed by Peter Sutcliffe in West Yorkshire. Between 1975 and 1980 he murdered thirteen women and attempted to murder eight more. His last victim was a student named Jacqueline Hill, who was murdered in Leeds in 1980. Sutcliffe was arrested in 1981 and convicted of her murder and killing others.The Claimant was Miss Hill’s mother claiming for loss of expectation of life and pain and suffering. Section 48(1) of the Police Act 1964 said that the chief officer of police for any police area would be liable in respects of torts committed by constables under his direction.
SARGENT V WALSALL METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL AND OTHERS Unreported 27th June 1985 Court of Appeal
This case concerned a child, who was born in 1972. Her mother left her with her father, who was arrested and imprisoned. She and her brother were taken into care under section 1 of the Children Act 1948 by the First Defendant. They were boarded out by the council with the Second and Third Defendants. There was no allegation before the Court of Appeal that the First Defendant, the local authority was negligent in selecting these foster parents, nor that the council exerted inadequate and improper supervision of them. Whilst the child was with her foster parents, she suffered severe burns to the soles of her feet and was in hospital for some time.
This case concerned a child, who was born in 1972. Her mother left her with her father, who was arrested and imprisoned. She and her brother were taken into care under section 1 of the Children Act 1948 by the First Defendant. They were boarded out by the council with the Second and Third Defendants. There was no allegation before the Court of Appeal that the First Defendant, the local authority was negligent in selecting these foster parents, nor that the council exerted inadequate and improper supervision of them. Whilst the child was with her foster parents, she suffered severe burns to the soles of her feet and was in hospital for some time.