L (A Minor) & Anor v Reading Borough Council & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 346 (12 March 2001)

L (A Minor) & Anor v Reading Borough Council & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 346 (12 March 2001)

The claims in negligence, misfeasance in public office, and conspiracy to injure should not have been struck out. There are arguable cases on proximity and assumption of responsibility, and the application of witness immunity does not extend to the alleged fabrication and misrepresentation of evidence. The balancing of public policy and individual rights must be determined at trial, not on a strike-out application. Striking out would risk violating Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 346
Parties
Claimant/appellant: L (a minor); Claimant/appellant: P (Father); 1st Respondent (not a Party to the Appeal): Reading Borough Council; 2nd Respondent: Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision Striking Out Claims
Outcome
Appeal allowed; order striking out the action set aside; action to proceed to trial.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy to Injure, Witness Immunity, Duty of Care, Article 6 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Striking Out Procedure
Tort Law Public Law Human Rights Law Police Law Negligence Misfeasance in Public Office Conspiracy to Injure Witness Immunity +4 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

L (a minor)

Claimant/appellant

P (Father)

Claimant/appellant

Reading Borough Council

1st Respondent (not a Party to the Appeal)

Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From High Court Decision Striking Out Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police owed a duty of care in negligence to the claimants
  2. 2 Whether claims for misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure were arguable
  3. 3 Whether witness immunity applied to shield the police from suit

Ratio Decidendi

The claims in negligence, misfeasance in public office, and conspiracy to injure should not have been struck out. There are arguable cases on proximity and assumption of responsibility, and the application of witness immunity does not extend to the alleged fabrication and misrepresentation of evidence. The balancing of public policy and individual rights must be determined at trial, not on a strike-out application. Striking out would risk violating Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; order striking out the action set aside; action to proceed to trial.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Order striking out the action set aside