Tindall & Anor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 25 (18 January 2022)

Tindall & Anor v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 25 (18 January 2022)

The pleaded facts, even taken at their highest, do not disclose a reasonable cause of action in tort against the police. The police did not create or increase the danger, did not prevent Mr Kendall from warning traffic by any positive act, and did not assume responsibility or control so as to create a relationship of proximity with the deceased. The removal of the warning sign and the departure of the police restored the situation to what it was before their arrival, and no duty of care arises in such circumstances under established law.

Citation
[2022] EWCA Civ 25
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Valerie Tindall; Respondent/claimant: Valerie Tindall (Administratrix of the Estate of Malcolm Tindall); Appellant/first Defendant: Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police; Second Defendant: Buckinghamshire County Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim against the Chief Constable struck out.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Police Liability, Omissions Vs Positive Acts, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Public Authority Liability Negligence Duty of Care Police Liability Omissions Vs Positive Acts Assumption of Responsibility

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 28 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Valerie Tindall

Respondent/claimant

Valerie Tindall (Administratrix of the Estate of Malcolm Tindall)

Respondent/claimant

Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

Appellant/first Defendant

Buckinghamshire County Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Appeal From Refusal to Strike Out or Grant Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police owed a duty of care to the deceased by making matters worse through their intervention at the accident scene
  2. 2 Whether the police assumed responsibility or control so as to create a relationship of proximity with the deceased
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts disclose a reasonable cause of action in tort against the police

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded facts, even taken at their highest, do not disclose a reasonable cause of action in tort against the police. The police did not create or increase the danger, did not prevent Mr Kendall from warning traffic by any positive act, and did not assume responsibility or control so as to create a relationship of proximity with the deceased. The removal of the warning sign and the departure of the police restored the situation to what it was before their arrival, and no duty of care arises in such circumstances under established law.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim against the Chief Constable struck out.

Orders

  • The claim against the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police is struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
  • No order as to costs against the Claimant.