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