FXS v Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited

FXS v Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited

The face down restraints constituted battery as they were unreasonable, contrary to policy, and not justified by emergency or dynamic risk; the towel method did not amount to false imprisonment as its use was reasonable and proportionate for statutory purposes; aggravated damages were not justified as the Defendant's conduct did not reach the threshold of egregiousness required.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: FXS (through his father and litigation friend JLM); Defendant/appellant: Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 April 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; findings of battery upheld, findings of false imprisonment and aggravated damages set aside.
Legal Topics
Battery, False Imprisonment, Negligence, Use of Force in Schools, Damages
Tort Law Education Law Child Law Battery False Imprisonment Negligence Use of Force in Schools Damages

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FXS (through his father and litigation friend JLM)

Claimant/respondent

Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the use of face down restraint constituted battery
  2. 2 Whether the use of the towel method constituted false imprisonment
  3. 3 Whether aggravated damages were properly awarded

Ratio Decidendi

The face down restraints constituted battery as they were unreasonable, contrary to policy, and not justified by emergency or dynamic risk; the towel method did not amount to false imprisonment as its use was reasonable and proportionate for statutory purposes; aggravated damages were not justified as the Defendant's conduct did not reach the threshold of egregiousness required.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; findings of battery upheld, findings of false imprisonment and aggravated damages set aside.

Orders

  • Award of compensatory damages for battery incidents upheld (£6,000).
  • Awards for false imprisonment and aggravated damages quashed.