HXA v Surrey County Council [2021] EWHC 2974 (QB) (08 November 2021)

HXA v Surrey County Council [2021] EWHC 2974 (QB) (08 November 2021)

The facts pleaded by the claimants did not amount to an arguable assumption of responsibility by the local authorities. The actions relied upon (placing on child protection register, contemplating care proceedings, resolving to undertake 'keeping safe' work, providing temporary accommodation) were not sufficient to create a common law duty of care to protect from harm by third parties. The law is now settled by the Supreme Court in N v Poole and subsequent authority, and the claims were correctly struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing a negligence claim.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2974 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: HXA; Defendant/respondent: Surrey County Council; Claimant/appellant: YXA (A Protected Party by his Litigation Friend THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR); Defendant/respondent: Wolverhampton City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Strike Out of Negligence Claims
Outcome
Appeals dismissed; strike out of negligence claims upheld.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Strike Out Applications, Local Authority Liability, Child Abuse, Human Rights Act 1998
Tort Law Public Law Child Protection Negligence Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Strike Out Applications Local Authority Liability +2 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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HXA

Claimant/appellant

Surrey County Council

Defendant/respondent

YXA (A Protected Party by his Litigation Friend THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR)

Claimant/appellant

Wolverhampton City Council

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Strike Out of Negligence Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether local authorities owed a common law duty of care to claimants to protect them from harm by third parties (their families) prior to a care order being made
  2. 2 Whether the facts pleaded amounted to an arguable assumption of responsibility by the local authorities
  3. 3 Whether the law in this area is sufficiently settled to justify strike out at this stage

Ratio Decidendi

The facts pleaded by the claimants did not amount to an arguable assumption of responsibility by the local authorities. The actions relied upon (placing on child protection register, contemplating care proceedings, resolving to undertake 'keeping safe' work, providing temporary accommodation) were not sufficient to create a common law duty of care to protect from harm by third parties. The law is now settled by the Supreme Court in N v Poole and subsequent authority, and the claims were correctly struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing a negligence claim.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed; strike out of negligence claims upheld.

Orders

  • Negligence claims against Surrey County Council and Wolverhampton City Council struck out.
  • Remaining claims (e.g., HXA's claim relating to school disclosure, YXA's Human Rights Act claim) to proceed as appropriate.