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

social care negligence claims – is there ever a time when an application to strike out is appropriate?

31 July 2019

Now that the Supreme Court has delivered its judgment in the case of CN & GN, many claimants’ solicitors are beginning to reawaken their files (where they have the funding and the will to do so); seeking disclosure from local authorities so that they can investigate and potentially issue claims.

Most defendant stakeholders consider that the CN & GN decision means it will be much more difficult for claimants to pursue claims in negligence. Some of the larger claimant firms are, nevertheless, prepared to invest a significant amount of time and money in investigating these cases further. This, in turn, has resource implications for local authorities.

The combination of legally-aided infant claimants and qualified one-way costs shifting means that local authorities can be put to enormous expense if they are required to give pre-action disclosure in relation to potentially unmeritorious cases.

Hence, is an application to strike out always doomed to fail? The honest answer, at this stage, is that we simply do not know, but some local authorities, particularly those facing a very large number of CN & GN based claims, may decide to test the water, not least so that they can assess whether it is worth taking on additional staff and resources in order to deal with pre-action applications for disclosure.

When dismissing the appeal in the CN judgment, the Supreme Court will have looked at the case as it was pleaded in the Particulars of Claim. Their Lordships will have had to assume that the facts pleaded by the Claimant were made out. CPR Practice Direction 3A para 1.4(3) provides that a court may strike a case out if it appears to the court that the particulars of claim “… contain a coherent set of facts but those facts, even if true, do not disclose a legally recognisable claim against the defendant.”

This means that in CN & GN the Supreme Court, in striking out the claim, had to assume that the facts set out in the Particulars of Claim were correct. Looking at the pleaded claim, it can be seen that the following facts were asserted, and we set them out here because parallels can be drawn in a number of possible failure to remove cases we are currently seeing:

  • the police made a safeguarding referral to Poole
  • Poole carried out an assessment of one of the children’s needs
  • the children were both allocated social workers
  • a Child in Need Plan was completed for one of the children
  • a Child Protection Strategy Meeting was held after an incident of self-harm by one of the children
  • one of the children was made the subject of a Child Protection Plan under the category of ‘risk of physical harm’.

All in all, the degree of engagement Poole Borough Council and other agencies in the area had with this family, was very significant indeed, and even in those circumstances, the Supreme Court held that, on the particular facts of this case, there was no duty of care, there was no assumption of responsibility, and there was no reliance by the mother on the local authority.

Taking all of this into account, and given the hugely disproportionate costs that are faced by local authorities in dealing with claims that lack legal merit, it is our view that local authorities do not simply have to assume that disclosure will have to be given in response to every single request and that cases will have to be litigated out.

It is a requirement under the CPR to litigate proportionately; therefore, in some instances it may be a better use of local authorities’ limited resources to require claimants’ solicitors to make an application for pre-action disclosure and provide the required evidence in support or if proceedings are issued, to make an application to strike out, where the facts of the case warrant it i.e. where the relationship between the local authority and the troubled family is equally or even more remote than that pleaded in the Poole case.


training and events

24Oct

Claims Club Manchester office

We will be discussing the Human Rights Act, school claims and a legal update on 'hot topics'.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

public matters - October 2019

This month includes government outsourcing, amending contracts, land registration 2025 target for public sector, inquests, and public procurement with SMEs, Brexit and the mafia.

View

Upcoming webinars

SMCR - making it work for your business

In this webinar we will explain the practical steps that firms should take in order to be compliant with SMCR from 9 December 2019.

View

Legal updates

Child Abuse Inquiry – latest recommendations in the Accountability and Reparations investigation

The Accountability and Reparations investigations of the IICSA has already carried out a large amount of work. Last month a report with its preliminary recommendations was published.

View

Brexit resources

More concerns on the horizon for social care services and private providers

In a survey conducted by Unison this summer more than half of our social workers say they are considering leaving the profession for a less stressful position.

View brexit resources

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