No Duty Of Care On Local Authorities To Protect Children From Third Parties

The Facts

Between May 2006 and December 2011 the Claimants, CN and GN, both of whom were children, and their mother were housed by Poole Borough Council ("the Council"). The Claimants were subject to harassment, anti-social behaviour and criminal behaviour by members of a neighbouring family on the estate. The Council were aware of the anti-social conduct of the neighbour prior to placement of the Claimants and their mother.

The Claimants and their mother frequently reported the behaviour to the Council and local Police, and despite a critical independent case review into the conduct of the Council (in March 2010), were not placed into alternative accommodation until December 2011.

Following the dismissal of an initial set of proceedings, all three members of the family commenced proceedings against the Local Authority in December 2014. They pleaded common law negligence alleging that the Local Authority had failed to protect them and rehouse them to a place of safety.

CN and GN issued an alternative claim that the Local Authority had failed to protect them (as children) from personal injury and should have rehoused them as a family, or take the Claimants into the care of the Local Authority if deemed necessary, compliant with its duties under the Children Act 1989.

Both claims were struck out by Master Eastman as having no reasonable prospect of success; however CN and GN successfully appealed against the striking out of their alternative claim.

High Court decision

The High Court found that authority in the case of JD v East Berkshire NHS Community Trust had established a purported duty of care on the part of the Council in similar circumstances, and remained good case law.

The High Court therefore held the claim was wrongly struck out finding that the claim must be considered on its particular facts to ascertain whether all the elements necessary to establish a cause of action in negligence are present: foreseeability, proximity or assumption of responsibility and that it is fair, just and reasonable to impose liability. This issue was not apt for determination on an application to strike out the claim.

The Council was granted permission to appeal this decision to reinstate the claim.

Court of Appeal decision

The Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the Council's appeal and therefore struck out; the case and restored the order of Master Eastman on the following basis:

To make a finding of liability in negligence may lead social workers and...