B v Reading Borough Council & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 1313 (11 December 2007)

B v Reading Borough Council & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 1313 (11 December 2007)

On the assumed facts, the principles established in D v East Berkshire preclude the imposition of a duty of care owed by social workers or the local authority to a parent suspected of child abuse, whether the claim is framed as vicarious or direct liability. The existence of a conflict or potential conflict of interest between the duty to the child and any duty to the parent means it is not fair, just, or reasonable to impose such a duty. Therefore, B's claim for breach of a direct duty is not arguable and must be struck out.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 1313
Parties
Claimant/respondent: B; First Defendant/appellant: Reading Borough Council; Second Defendant/appellant: Wokingham District Council; Third Defendant: The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (refusal to Strike Out Part of Claim)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; permission to amend pleadings to advance direct duty claim refused; application for extension of time to appeal vicarious liability strike-out refused.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Direct Liability, Misfeasance in Public Office, Conspiracy to Injure, Striking Out Pleadings, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Public Law Child Protection Negligence Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Direct Liability Misfeasance in Public Office +3 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

B

Claimant/respondent

Reading Borough Council

First Defendant/appellant

Wokingham District Council

Second Defendant/appellant

The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interlocutory Order (refusal to Strike Out Part of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a local authority owes a direct duty of care to a parent suspected of child abuse in the context of child protection investigations
  2. 2 Whether the claim for breach of such a direct duty is arguable in light of House of Lords authority in D v East Berkshire
  3. 3 Whether permission should be granted to amend pleadings to advance a direct duty claim

Ratio Decidendi

On the assumed facts, the principles established in D v East Berkshire preclude the imposition of a duty of care owed by social workers or the local authority to a parent suspected of child abuse, whether the claim is framed as vicarious or direct liability. The existence of a conflict or potential conflict of interest between the duty to the child and any duty to the parent means it is not fair, just, or reasonable to impose such a duty. Therefore, B's claim for breach of a direct duty is not arguable and must be struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; permission to amend pleadings to advance direct duty claim refused; application for extension of time to appeal vicarious liability strike-out refused.

Orders

  • Order granting permission to re-re-amend particulars of claim to plead direct duty set aside.
  • Application for extension of time for permission to appeal against striking out of vicarious liability claim refused.