Ancell v McDermott [1993] EWCA Civ 20 (29 January 1993)

Ancell v McDermott [1993] EWCA Civ 20 (29 January 1993)

Police officers do not owe a duty of care to individual road users to warn or protect them from hazards on the highway created by others. The claim against the Chief Constables disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out. The imposition of such a duty is not supported by proximity or policy and would have undesirable consequences for police functions.

Citation
[1993] EWCA Civ 20
Parties
Respondent (plaintiff): Lawrence Raymond Ancell; Respondent (plaintiff, Minor): Katie Ancell; Appellant (defendant): Michael James McDermott; Appellant (defendant): The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire; Appellant (defendant): The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire; Appellant (defendant): Alpha Bulk Liquids Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 1993
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (negligence, Fatal Accident) / Appeal From High Court (order 18, Rule 19 Application to Strike Out)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action against the second and third defendants struck out
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Police Liability, Public Policy, Striking Out Pleadings
Tort Law Public Law Negligence Duty of Care Police Liability Public Policy Striking Out Pleadings

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Raymond Ancell

Respondent (plaintiff)

Katie Ancell

Respondent (plaintiff, Minor)

Michael James McDermott

Appellant (defendant)

The Chief Constable of Hertfordshire

Appellant (defendant)

The Chief Constable of Bedfordshire

Appellant (defendant)

Alpha Bulk Liquids Limited

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (negligence, Fatal Accident) / Appeal From High Court (order 18, Rule 19 Application to Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether police officers owe a duty of care to individual road users to warn or protect them from hazards on the highway created by others
  2. 2 Whether the claim against the Chief Constables should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

Police officers do not owe a duty of care to individual road users to warn or protect them from hazards on the highway created by others. The claim against the Chief Constables disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out. The imposition of such a duty is not supported by proximity or policy and would have undesirable consequences for police functions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action against the second and third defendants struck out

Orders

  • Order of Garland J. set aside
  • Action against the second and third defendants struck out