Denis Hamilton & Anor v The London Borough of Sutton
[2024] EWHC 1675 (KB)
HXA v Surrey County Council
20 December 2023
[2023] UKSC 52
Supreme Court
Two children sued councils for not protecting them from abuse at home. The Supreme Court said the councils didn't promise to keep them safe, so they weren't responsible. Even though the councils knew about problems, that alone wasn't enough to make them legally responsible for the abuse.
Key Facts
- •HXA and YXA brought negligence claims against local authorities for failing to protect them from childhood abuse by parents or partners.
- •Claims alleged both direct and vicarious liability.
- •Local authorities applied to strike out the claims, arguing no arguable cause of action.
- •Court of Appeal overturned lower court decisions, holding claims should not be struck out.
- •Supreme Court considered whether particulars of claim provided basis for evidence of assumption of responsibility.
- •HXA's case involved multiple referrals and allegations of abuse over several years.
- •YXA's case involved respite care arrangements under Section 20 of the Children Act 1989.
- •The Supreme Court considered the interplay between common law duty of care and statutory duties under the Children Act 1989.
- •The Supreme Court heavily relied on the precedent of *N v Poole Borough Council*.
Legal Principles
Public authorities may owe a duty of care where principles applicable to private individuals would impose such a duty, unless inconsistent with legislation.
N v Poole [2019] UKSC 25
Public authorities do not owe a duty of care merely because they have statutory powers or duties.
N v Poole [2019] UKSC 25
A public authority can owe a common law duty to protect from harm where it has created the source of danger or assumed responsibility to protect, unless inconsistent with legislation.
N v Poole [2019] UKSC 25
Assumption of responsibility requires establishing what the defendant allegedly assumed responsibility to do with reasonable care.
This case
In negligence claims for failure to protect from harm by a third party, assumption of responsibility is a key element to establish liability.
This case
Provision of services under a statutory scheme does not automatically create an assumption of responsibility. 'Something more' is needed.
N v Poole and this case
Reliance by the claimant may not be a necessary feature of an assumption of responsibility in child protection cases.
This case
Outcomes
Supreme Court allowed the appeals.
No arguable duty of care was owed to the claimants as there was no relevant assumption of responsibility by the local authorities.
Claims in both cases were correctly struck out at first instance.
The particulars of claim did not provide a basis for leading evidence of a relevant assumption of responsibility.
Court of Appeal decision overturned.
The Court of Appeal incorrectly characterized the area of law as developing and uncertain, requiring a full trial to clarify the principles. The Supreme Court held the application of *N v Poole* was straightforward in these cases.