No Duty On Social Landlords To Protect Tenants Against The Actions Of Others

On 18 February 2009, the House of Lords handed down their

judgment in the case of Mitchell and another v Glasgow City

Council [2009] UKHL 11.

The claim

The case was brought by Anne Mitchell, the widow of James

Mitchell, who was killed by a violent neighbour. Mrs Mitchell sued

Glasgow City Council for failing in its duty of care towards Mr

Mitchell. Mr Mitchell moved into a property on the Moss Park estate

of Glasgow in March 1986. His neighbour was Mr Drummond. Both

properties were owned by Glasgow City Council.

Trouble began in December 1994 when Mr Mitchell complained to Mr

Drummond for playing loud music; Drummond retaliated, bashing the

Mitchells' door with a tyre lever and smashing his windows. The

police were called and Drummond arrested. Between 1994 and 2001

there were countless incidences of verbal and physical abuse

directed at Mr Mitchell and his family by Mr Drummond, including

frequent threats to kill.

Subsequently, Mr Drummond was warned by Glasgow City Council

that they were considering possession proceedings. In January 2001,

the Council served on Mr Drummond, a Notice of Proceedings for

Recovery of Possession of the property. On 31 July 2001, the

Council arranged a meeting with Mr Drummond to discuss his

behaviour and the Notice of Proceedings. At the meeting the Council

explained that they would be issuing a fresh Notice of Proceedings

and would continue to monitor his anti-social behaviour, which

could result in his eviction. Mr Drummond lost his temper and

became abusive, but then appeared to calm down and apologised to

the Council's staff. He then left the meeting and violently

assaulted Mr Mitchell, leaving him with injuries from which he

subsequently died.

Mrs Mitchell sought to claim damages from the Council on the

basis that they should have kept Mr Mitchell and the police

informed of the steps they were taking against Mr Drummond, and in

particular should have notified them of the meeting on 31 July

2001.

The judgment

Judgment was given in favour of the Council. Lord Hope said that

if such a duty to warn was imposed, the Council would have to

determine, step by step at each stage, whether the actions they

proposed to take in fulfilment of their responsibilities as

landlords, required a warning to be given, and to whom. They would

have had to defer taking that step until the warning had been

received by everyone, and an opportunity given for it to be acted

upon. The more attentive the Council was to their ordinary...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT