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?

Millward v Oxfordshire County Council, High Court, 20 February 2004

2 March 2004
The issues

Teachers – assault – secure residential unit – Council Directive 89/391 – contributory negligence.

The facts

The Claimant was a 47-year old female Teacher who taught one day a week at a secure residential unit. In April 2000, she was assaulted by an in-mate at the unit who had arrived 10 days before. At other care homes previously, he had assaulted other members of staff and had shown an inclination to assault women. When he arrived at the care home, he had come without documentary evidence with regard to the previous assaults. The day after his arrival, staff had a meeting and the in-mate’s history of violence was discovered. The Claimant had not been directly told of the history of violence. The Claimant had asked the in-mate to “shut up” and had been responded to by an assault, causing minor bruising and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. She brought an action against the Local Authority in respect of its alleged breach of duty of care and claimed that she had an enforceable right against the Local Authority under Council Directive 89/391.

The decision

1. The secure accommodation unit run by the Local Authority had a duty to obtain all relevant information before admitting him or her to the unit and to inform anyone likely to come into contact with the individual if they posed a risk or had a history of violence.

2. In this case the risk was clear and the Claimant had not been adequately informed.

3. The Claimant had no enforceable right under Council Directive 89/391 since the employer’s obligations at the time of the assault were too general to confer any right on individual workers.

4. In respect of the assault and PTSD likely to last for 6 years, general damages of £15,000.00 would be awarded. The Claimant would be found liable to the extent of 25% for contributory negligence on the basis that she had responded to the in-mates talking in class in a manner, which was confrontational and risky.

Judgment for the Claimant.

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