DN v London Borough of Greenwich Rev 2 [2004] EWCA Civ 1659 (08 December 2004)

DN v London Borough of Greenwich Rev 2 [2004] EWCA Civ 1659 (08 December 2004)

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find Mr Moreland negligent in failing to properly assess DN's needs and recommend appropriate educational provision, and that this breach caused DN to lose the opportunity for better educational and social outcomes. However, the judge erred in treating causation as a 'loss of a chance' rather than applying the balance of probabilities. The correct approach is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, what would have happened but for the negligence. The appeal was dismissed on liability, but the assessment of damages must be approached in accordance with the correct legal principles on causation.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1659
Parties
Claimant/respondent: DN (by his father and litigation friend RN); Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Greenwich
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (professional Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on liability; directions given for assessment of damages in accordance with correct causation principles.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Standard of Care, Causation, Assessment of Damages, Expert Evidence, Special Educational Needs
Tort Law Education Law Professional Negligence Duty of Care Standard of Care Causation Assessment of Damages Expert Evidence +1 more

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DN (by his father and litigation friend RN)

Claimant/respondent

London Borough of Greenwich

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (professional Negligence) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the educational psychologist (Mr Moreland) owed and breached a duty of care to DN in the preparation of his report in 1990
  2. 2 Whether the breach caused DN to suffer loss, specifically in relation to his educational and social development
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge erred in his treatment of expert and factual evidence, and in his approach to causation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge was entitled to find Mr Moreland negligent in failing to properly assess DN's needs and recommend appropriate educational provision, and that this breach caused DN to lose the opportunity for better educational and social outcomes. However, the judge erred in treating causation as a 'loss of a chance' rather than applying the balance of probabilities. The correct approach is to determine, on the balance of probabilities, what would have happened but for the negligence. The appeal was dismissed on liability, but the assessment of damages must be approached in accordance with the correct legal principles on causation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on liability; directions given for assessment of damages in accordance with correct causation principles.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant on liability and causation upheld.
  • Damages to be assessed applying the balance of probabilities as to what would have happened but for the negligence, not on a loss of a chance basis.