HXA v Surrey County Council
[2023] UKSC 52
Denis Hamilton & Anor v The London Borough of Sutton
1 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1675 (KB)
High Court
A man took in his nephew (HBC) via a special guardianship order. He sued the local authority, claiming they hid HBC's developmental problems. The court said the council only owed a duty to the child, not the uncle, and that the council did nothing beyond its legal responsibilities. The lawsuit was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against an order dismissing appellants' application for interim payment and striking out their claim.
- •Appellants: Denis Hamilton (maternal uncle) and HBC (child, subject of special guardianship order).
- •Respondent: London Borough of Sutton.
- •Claim: Negligence and misrepresentation by the Respondent in failing to identify HBC's developmental delays before a special guardianship order was granted.
- •Appellants argued the Respondent assumed responsibility for HBC's care and negligently failed to disclose developmental issues.
- •Respondent argued no duty of care was owed to Hamilton, only to HBC.
- •The lower court dismissed the claim, finding no duty of care owed to Hamilton.
Legal Principles
Assumption of responsibility
Poole BC v GN [2019] UKSC 25, HXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52
Duty of care arising from statutory powers
Poole BC v GN [2019] UKSC 25
Duty of care in misrepresentation
Hedley Byrne & Company Ltd v Heller [1963] UKHL 4, Spring v Guardian Assurance plc [1995] 2 AC 296
Striking out a statement of case
CPR 3.4(2), Barrett v Enfield London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 550
Summary judgment
CPR 24, EasyAir Ltd v Opal Telecoms [2009] EWHC 339, King v Steifel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm)
Conflict of duties
D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23
Special Guardianship Orders
Adoption and Children Act 2002, Children Act 1989, Special Guardianship Regulations 2005
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The appellant failed to establish an assumption of responsibility by the respondent towards him. The respondent's actions were solely in compliance with its duties to the child, not the prospective guardian. No contract or quasi-contract existed.
Grounds 1A and 5 also dismissed.
Ground 1A (procedural impropriety in the lower court) failed as Ground 1 (duty of care) failed. Ground 5 (financial losses) was dependent on the success of Ground 1.