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?

County Council v SM and Others, Court of Appeal

25 September 2001
The issues

Local government – Striking out – Sex abuse

The facts

The claimants alleged that a woman and her son had moved into a flat opposite where the claimant lived. They claimed that the son sexually assaulted the claimants and committed acts of gross indecency on them. They alleged that the injuries that they had suffered had been a consequence of a breach of duty of care or negligence on the part of the defendant County Council. The son had been on bail for two charges of indecent assault and was on the County Council’s at risk register himself.

The defendant County Council tried to strike out and failed before the District Judge who ordered that the claims should be struck out unless the Particulars of Claim were amended. The amendments were made. Appeal was made by the defendant to the Judge who dismissed it. The defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal arguing that they accepted that European Authority was against striking out on the grounds that it was not fair just and reasonable to impose a duty of care, that there was no reason why a strike out could not succeed on the basis of foreseeability and proximity.

The claimants were not a member of an exceptional or distinctive category risk but were merely members of the general public.

The decision

The claimant’s allegations made out no arguable case on foreseeability and failed to establish proximity.

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