Key Facts
- •DJ, the claimant, was sexually abused by Mr. G, his maternal aunt's husband, while in foster care.
- •DJ was placed in voluntary foster care with the G family by Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council (the Defendant) in early 1980.
- •DJ alleges vicarious liability of the council for Mr. G's actions.
- •The Recorder dismissed the claim, finding the relationship between the council and the G family not akin to employer/employee.
- •The appeal focuses on whether the relationship between the council and the G family was sufficiently akin to employment to justify vicarious liability.
Legal Principles
Vicarious liability requires a relationship akin to employment between the defendant and the tortfeasor, and a close connection between the tortious act and that relationship.
BXB [2023] UKSC 15
The relationship between a local authority and foster carers is generally akin to employer/employee for vicarious liability purposes (unless relatives).
Armes v Nottingham County Council [2017] UKSC 60
In determining vicarious liability, consider whether the tortfeasor's activity was integral to the defendant's business; factors include control, benefit, and creation of risk.
Christian Brothers [2012] UKSC 56; Barclays Bank plc v Various Claimants [2020] UKSC 13
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court found that the G family's care of DJ was sufficiently distinct from the council's statutory duties, resembling parents raising a relative rather than a commercial fostering arrangement.
Recorder's decision upheld.
The Gs' motivation to foster DJ (because he was a relative) and the unique circumstances of the placement pointed towards a family arrangement, not one akin to employment.