The Supreme Court decision in Poole Borough Council v GN and another [2019] UKSC 25 addresses key legal principles in relation to duty of care connected with the performance of statutory services by public bodies.
The Supreme Court decision in Poole Borough Council v GN and another [2019] UKSC 25 addresses key legal principles in relation to duty of care connected with the performance of statutory services by public bodies.
Though the case itself is about social care services, the decision is likely to become a reference point on negligence arising from failures to act in a variety of circumstances.
GN, his mother and his brother were housed in a property near a family known to engage in antisocial behaviour. GN and his brother suffered severe harassment as a result. Their mother, through no fault on her part, could not protect them. Both children were identified as children in need by Poole Borough Council and social workers were allocated.
The claim examined by the Supreme Court was against Poole Borough council alone. It was pleaded on the basis of negligence, and alleged the council owed the claimants a duty by virtue of the social work intervention. It was asserted that the council should have removed the claimants from their mother’s care.
The claim was struck out by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court upheld the strike out, though on a different basis.
Lord Reed gave the judgment, which was unanimously agreed.
Statutory obligations do not of themselves give rise to a duty of care in negligence. However, in some circumstances a duty may arise from what is done or not done in the operation of a statutory scheme. To the extent X v Bedfordshire County council [1995] 2 AC 633 limited liability on public policy grounds, it is no longer good law.
In GN, the claim was not linked to an act but to an omission, more specifically it was alleged there was a duty to protect the claimants from the acts of a third party. In such cases, a specific basis for asserting a duty of care must be established. These include:
Assumption of responsibility might arise from an express undertaking that reasonable skill will be taken, but more commonly it is implied from the foreseeable reliance of individuals on the exercise of reasonable care.
Such reliance is inferred where a hospital admits a patient, where an education authority accepts a pupil into a school, and where a child is taken into care. In such cases, the reliance can be inferred from the nature of the function being performed.
In other cases, assumption of responsibility may be inferred from ‘the manner in which a public authority has behaved towards the claimant in a particular case.’
Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] is an example in a different context of how such an assumption may arise. In Phelps an educational psychologist ‘assumed responsibility for the professional advice which he provided about a child in circumstances where it was reasonably foreseeable that the child’s parents would rely on that advice.’
The judgment provides limited insight into the factual matrix required for an assumption of responsibility in a social work context. Lord Reed was clear that anxiety in relation to the outcome on the part of the claimant’s mother was insufficient, and also rejected argument that an email from an antisocial behaviour coordinator established a duty as ‘a duty of care cannot be brought into being solely by a statement that it exists.’
Poole v GN provides a clear overarching theory of duty of care in negligence relating to the operation of a statutory scheme, and resolves inconsistencies in earlier authorities. Absent are any specific statutory provisions on liability, organisations responsible for delivery of statutory services are in no better or worse position than private individuals or businesses.
Therefore, a duty exists in relation to actions taken in the context of a statutory service, and where negligent performance has caused harm there may be a claim.
It is trite that many omissions can be re-cast as acts and cases such as Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2018] UKSC 4 demonstrate the challenge of distinguishing these two categories. A bystander injured in the course of an arrest was able to claim as the defendant’s officers had been engaged in the act of arresting a suspect at the time.
Robinson and now GN distinguish such cases from alleged ‘failure to confer a benefit’, or ‘to prevent harm caused by the conduct of third parties’. For a duty in these circumstances, additional elements such as an assumption of responsibility must be present.
It is likely these omissions claims will fall into a number of broad categories, such as those which arise from alleged reliance, or those which involve statements said to be express assumptions of responsibility.
However, GN does not provide significant guidance as to the factual circumstances required in order to show that there was a duty in the new contexts in which the test is now likely to be applied. More test cases might be expected, but Lord Reed’s comment that ‘assumption of responsibility can be highly dependent on the facts’ suggests clarity will be hard won.
This article was originally published by Local Government Lawyer on 6 June 2019.
Partner
james.arrowsmith@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3981
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
Logistics company Eddie Stobart has been fined £133,000, after a series of failures which took place whilst excavation work was carried out, exposing its staff to asbestos.
This article is the second in a series to help firms take a practical approach to complying with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ (CD) framework. The article summarises what it seems the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is seeking to achieve from the applicable rules (section 2 below) and potential complications arising from legal considerations (section 3).
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
Settlement agreements in an employment context are ordinarily used to provide both parties with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship – but what happens when there is alleged discrimination after entering into a settlement agreement?
The Digital Services Act (the “DSA”) has today (27 October) been given the go-ahead by the EU Council and will enter into force by early 2024.
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
Investment zones have been introduced by the Conservative party to get the United Kingdom (UK) ‘working, building and growing’. They are to be designated sites which provide time-limited tax incentives, streamlined planning rules and wider support for local growth to encourage investment and accelerate the development of housing and infrastructure that the UK needs to drive economic growth. Processes and requirements that slow down development will be stripped back with the intention of attracting new investment.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
It is clear that the digital landscape, often termed cyberspace, is a man-made environment, in which human behaviour dominates and where technology both influences and aids our role in it — through the internet, telecoms and networked computer systems, which are often interdependent. The extent to which any organisation is potentially vulnerable to cyber-attack depends on how well these elements are aligned.
Three months on from the commencement of the new statutory Integrated Care Systems (ICS) Anja Beriro and Gerrard Hanratty reflect on the main themes and issues that have come from the new relationship between local government and health.
The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have announced they will be carrying out a programme of inspections to primary and secondary school establishments from September 2022. The inspections will assess how schools are managing the risks from asbestos and meeting the Duty to Manage requirements, set out in Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012.
The Procurement Bill (the Bill) has now been with us for about four months, during which time there have been a huge number of amendments proposed in the House of Lords (circa 320). Lately, there has been less mention of it — unsurprising, really, given everything else going on in politics recently — but here’s a summary of some of the key issues and themes so far.
Browne Jacobson has been named as a supplier on Crown Commercial Service’s (CCS) Public Sector Legal Services Framework on Lot 1a – full-service provision (England and Wales) and Lot 2a – general service provision (England and Wales).
This article is the first in a series aimed to help firms get to grips on a practical basis with the ‘cross-cutting rules’ within the new ‘Consumer Duty’ framework.
