0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council, Queen's Bench Division, 8 November 2000

6 December 2000
The issues

School’s duty to prevent bullying – limits of that duty – whether it extends to beyond the school gates.

The facts

The Claimant had been bullied between the ages of 9 and 12 whilst a pupil at a primary school to which the Defendant Council was responsible. The bullying had occurred on an estate where the Claimant lived and on the school bus.

The decision

Teachers had “a duty to exercise the skill and care of a reasonable teacher on the basis of what would have been acceptable to reasonable members of the teaching profession” (see Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council).

Whether there was as duty depended on foreseabilty, proximity and the fair, just and reasonable test. See Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman.

It was not practical let alone fair, just and reasonable to impose upon a school a greater duty than to take reasonable steps to prevent bullying spilling over into school. It was not reasonable to expect a school to be responsible for activities whilst on the journey to and from school even if the school was on notice. The duty was to “take defensive measures”. If the school chose to be proactive that was a matter of discretion not obligation.

Claim dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up