Local authorities now have the benefit of a flurry of recent judgments on the issue of the existence of a duty of care in children’s ‘failure to remove’ cases.
This article is taken from June's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
Local authorities now have the benefit of a flurry of recent judgments on the issue of the existence of a duty of care in children’s ‘failure to remove’ cases.
These claims commonly concern an assertion that a local authority ought to have applied for a Care Order, in relation to children being harmed within the family home, earlier than in fact they did. Sometimes, but not always, these cases are enmeshed with potential claims under the Human Rights Act for breaches of ECHR Convention rights.
2021 has been busy. In HXA v Surrey County Council [2021] EWHC 250 (QB), Deputy Master Bagot QC was prepared to strike out large chunks of the claimant’s case, approving previous and more senior court decisions. These had concluded a duty of care arose only when a care order is made because, until that point, the local authority does not have parental responsibility.
In HXA the claim concerned allegations that social workers had failed to protect children from physical abuse and neglect at the hands of their mother, and sexual abuse from one of her partners. The judge rejected arguments that not removing the children from their mother’s care added to the danger. He also dismissed any assertion that the local authority had failed to control the wrongdoers, since there was not control over or right to control those wrongdoers. Finally, he rejected the argument that the council prevented others from protecting the claimant, particularly since no positive evidence on that issue had been put to the court.
In May this year, the long-awaited judgment in DXF v Coventry City Council [2021] EWHC 1328 (QB) was delivered, after a long and detailed trial of all the facts. Mrs Justice Lambert found that, although there was a long period of social services involvement, no assumption of responsibility arose on the facts of the case. She also found for the council both on the question of breach of duty and on causation.
A few days later, another strikeout was ordered for a Browne Jacobson client in the case of YXA v Wolverhampton City Council. In this case, as in so many cases local authorities will face, the child had been in residential care organised by the local authority for short periods of time. It is common, in ‘failure to remove’ cases, for claimant solicitors to assert that where a child has been accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1980, on this voluntary basis, that gives rise to a duty of care by way of assumption of responsibility. The Master rejected this assertion, and also rejected arguments that the council had increased the danger to the claimant by returning him home to his family at the end of a period of respite care, had failed to control wrongdoers and had, in any way, prevented others from protecting him. The court concluded that when a child went home to his parents after respite care, all that was happening was a return of the child, in accordance with the legislation, as the council was required to do.
So, does this mean an end to ‘failure to remove’ claims and the associated expense of disclosure and witness statementing?
Regrettably, the answer is probably not, at least for the short to medium term. We know from experience that some claimant firms, without regard to the issues of proportionality or consideration of the guidance given by the Court of Appeal in various judgments about disclosure, often seek unredacted disclosure of all records in relation to children in order to see if there might be a claim.
This puts local authorities and sometimes SAR teams in the invidious position of having to assess what if any disclosure ought to be made, despite not having a letter of claim, any indication as to what alleged duty might be owed and how it is breached or detail about what Convention rights have allegedly been breached.
Perhaps more guidance will be available shortly, as an appeal in HXA is listed for determination on 7 July 2021.
Partner
Sarah.Erwin-Jones@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)115 976 6136
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.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
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.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
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.
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.
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
The complex and rather nebulous transitional subsidy control regime set out in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the UK’s wider international commitments has made it difficult for public authorities and those working with them to proceed with certainty where subsidies are involved.
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”).
