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?

Mullaney v Chief Constable of the West Midlands, Court of Appeal, 15 May 2001

21 May 2001
The issues

Police – Duty Owed To A Constable – Dereliction Of Duty On The Part Of Colleague – Vicarious Liability

The facts

The Claimant was injured in the course of a police operation relating to importuning in public lavatories. Whilst alone and trying to arrest a suspect he was assaulted and seriously injured. He brought an action against the Chief Constable alleging that the injuries that he sustained in the later stages of the incident were caused by the failure of another Police Officer to come to his aid and stop the attack. At Trial it was found as a fact that there had been a serious dereliction of duty on the part of a fellow officer (K) – that the Claimant’s injuries would have been prevented had K come to his aid – that there had been a cover up by the creation of a false log and false evidence given in Court by Police Officers. The Chief Constable appealed.

The decision

K had failed to comply with a specific police duty that had exposed the Claimant to risk of injury. There was no distinction between the duty owed by an employer to his employee and the duty owed by a Chief Constable to Police Officers in his charge. The relationship between the Chief Constable and his Officers was so closely analogous to that between an employer and employees to make it just in principal to hold that he owed the same duties – namely a non delegable duty of care to devise and operate a safe system of work. There was no public policy reason why that duty should not extend to the system involving K. The Defendant was therefore liable for breach of duty if care was not exercised to operate the system safely. If K had exercised reasonable care the system would have been safely operated. The Defendant was liable vicariously for K’s failure.

Appeal 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