Browne Jacobson’s government lawyers have successfully defended Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (Barnsley MBC) after an appeal in the High Court of a vicarious liability claim was dismissed.
The judgment was recently handed down by Mrs Justice Lambert DBE in the long running case DJ (Claimant) v Barnsley MBC (Defendant), which concerned the provision of ‘connected-person foster care’ before the implementation of the Children Act 1989.
The Court found that the Claimant was placed in voluntary care with his uncle and aunt (Mr and Mrs G) at the age of 9 in January 1980. The G family later applied and were approved as what the council labelled “ de facto” foster parents. He remained in the care of the family until his late teens. As an adult, the Claimant alleged that he was sexually assaulted by his uncle Mr G, allegations which were continuously denied.
The Court ordered there be a trial of the preliminary issue of whether the Council was vicariously liable for the alleged abuse of the Claimant by the uncle, Mr G. In this case, the issue before the Court was whether relatives of the Claimant did or did not stand in a similar relationship as ordinary foster carers. The Defendant argued that the relationship between the uncle and aunt and the local authority was similar to that of parents, and so the Council could not be vicariously liable for their alleged actions.
The Judge on Appeal accepted the finding that the uncle was not carrying out an activity, in fostering his nephew, on behalf of the Council (the Defendant) and was satisfied that certain features which would typically be visible in a relationship between ordinary foster carers and a local authority were not present. The court concluded that the G family were not recruited for the role of foster carers or selected by the local authority, pointing out that they came forward to take on the role of caring for their nephew when his family broke up. It was also evident in the case that the uncle and aunt were not trained for the role of foster carers and so they were not in need of information concerning their nephew’s background or particular training to care for him from the local authority.
The judge was persuaded that there was a definitive line between the activity of the uncle and activity of the Council because all of the evidence suggested that the G family’s purpose was to raise the Claimant as part of their family and in the interests of the family, rather than to benefit the local authority. For these reasons the appeal was dismissed.
Browne Jacobson partner Sarah Erwin Jones who advised the local authority commented on the decision: “We were privileged to be instructed on this sensitive case concerning the provision of connected‑person foster care before the implementation of the Children Act 1989.
“This judgment overall, is a helpful one as we know that historically nationwide, the proportion of children in friends and family or connected‑person foster care arrangements has sat consistently between 15% and 20% of all those fostered. However, what is evident is that the decision‑making of the judge was very much based on specific facts of this case as set out in the available evidence. Good record keeping that shows how decisions were arrived at and captures all communications with carers remains key.
“With so much focus on the role of the extended family, as proposed in the Government's latest proposals Children's social care: stable homes, built on love, local authorities will be reassured that this case suggests the courts will be reluctant to impose liability on councils for deliberate assaults by family members providing fostering and analogous care.”
Key contact

Henrietta Scott
Head of Marketing
henrietta.scott@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)330 045 2299
Related expertise
You may be interested in...
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill: Competitive flexible procedure, how will this work in practice?
Legal Update - Procurement Act
Procurement Bill - Are they still playing ping-pong?
Online Event
Data Shared Insights: Information sharing – why, when, how?
Published Article
InLaw: the start of the EPR convergence journey
Opinion
Parental alienation a tool for domestic abuse?
Legal Update
Work experience placements – commendable: have them, and be alive to the risk
Press Release
Browne Jacobson advise Virgin Money on refinancing of complex care provider Cornerstone Healthcare Group
Opinion
Modern slavery in the care sector – how employers can manage risks
Opinion
£600m funding unveiled to boost social care workforce
Press Release
Browne Jacobson announces appointment of Barrister to its Cardiff office
Legal Update
Section 117 after-care services – who should pay?
Press Release
Browne Jacobson successfully defend vicarious liability claim appeal in connected person foster care case
Opinion
Further consultants strike announced following government pay offer
Legal Update
Public Consultation on a Mandatory Reporting Regime for Child Sexual Abuse
Opinion
NHS announces artificial intelligence fund
Legal Update
Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) update – June 2023
Press Release
Law firm champions social care as thousands of care homes set to open their doors
Legal Update
Restricting a patient’s use of their mobile phone – is it lawful?
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public Matters - May 2023
Legal Update
AB vs Worcestershire County Council and Birmingham City Council
Legal Update
Retirement housing: A solution to our care and housing crises?
Opinion
Pay deal reached for Agenda for Change employees
Opinion
Injunction means nurses’ strike will be cut short
Published Article
Supporting employees with mental health issues
Opinion - Maternity services
Racial disparities in maternity care
Opinion
Further industrial action announced as RCN reject pay deal
Legal Update - Public matters newsletter
Public matters - March 2023
Legal Update
Supreme Court will hear Worcestershire case on local authority responsibility for Section 117 Aftercare in April 2023
Legal Update
HXA and YXA failure to remove cases: Key considerations in anticipation of the Supreme Court judgment
Opinion - Maternity services
University Hospital Leicester hold their inaugural Maternity Safety Conference
Opinion
Junior doctors vote unanimously in favour of strike action
Opinion
BMA issues medical locum rate card for junior doctors
Opinion
New toolkit to support safer recruitment in the care sector
Article
Mental health, eating disorders and placement of young people
Legal Update
LPS consultation and ‘go live’ planning
Published Article
Local authority ‘failure to remove’ duties: Up in the air
Legal Update
A brief summary of the Court of Appeal decision in HXA v Surrey County Council and YXA v Wolverhampton City Council
On 31 August 2022, the Court of Appeal handed down the Judgment in respect of the appeal case of HXA v Surrey County Council and YXA v Wolverhampton City Council [2022].
Legal Update
Liberty Protection Safeguards: points to note as consultation period continues
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards was due to transition to Liberty Protection Safeguards in October 2020 but delayed due to the pandemic. While the public consultation has now closed and we’re still unclear of what the final legislation and code will look like, it’s worth noting and keeping a watching brief.
Legal Update
Avoiding the pitfalls of WhatsApp
The use of social media platforms and applications can have overwhelmingly positive benefits for public bodies. However, regulatory action recently taken by the Information Commissioner, has highlighted various pitfalls that public bodies should seek to avoid if allowing staff to use social media as a communication tool.
Opinion
Challenges from potential Foster Carers and Adopters
Our immediate future shows a renewed focus on foster care. We’re going to see a new nationwide-drive to recruit foster carers and the implementation of a more robust, and potentially financially-generous system for encouraging friends and family to care for their relatives (both when extended families cannot cope or provide care for any reason).