Key Facts
- •DJ, aged 10, was abandoned by his parents and placed with his maternal aunt and uncle (Mr. and Mrs. G) in 1980 by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council.
- •The council carried out a foster assessment and approved the Gs as foster carers.
- •In 1983, the council assumed parental rights over DJ.
- •DJ alleged sexual assault by Mr. G between 1980 and 1986.
- •DJ sued the council for vicarious liability.
- •Lower courts ruled against DJ; this is a second appeal.
Legal Principles
Vicarious liability of a local authority for torts committed by a foster carer who is also a relative of the child.
Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60
Two-stage test for vicarious liability: (1) relationship akin to employment between defendant and tortfeasor; (2) close connection between tort and relationship.
Various Claimants v Barclays Bank plc [2020] UKSC 13; BXB v Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [2023] UKSC 15
Factors to consider in determining 'akin to employment': payment, work integration, control, benefit to defendant, appointment/termination, hierarchy.
BXB v Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses [2023] UKSC 15
Policy considerations for vicarious liability (means to compensate, activity on behalf of employer, integral to employer's business, risk creation, control).
Christian Brothers [2012] UKSC 56; Cox v Ministry of Justice [2016] UKSC 10
Relevant legislation before the Children Act 1989 (Children Act 1948, Children and Young Persons Acts 1963, 1969, Child Care Act 1980).
Various statutes
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; claim reinstated.
The Court of Appeal found that the relationship between the local authority and Mr. and Mrs. G was akin to employment after August 1980, when DJ was formally received into care. The council's actions in assessing, approving, and supervising the Gs, coupled with their statutory duty to care for DJ, satisfied the test for vicarious liability. The Gs' motive in caring for their nephew was deemed irrelevant.