0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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