Rowley & Ors v Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions

Rowley & Ors v Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions

A common law duty of care does not arise on the part of the Secretary of State in the performance of statutory functions under the Child Support Act 1991 because such a duty would be inconsistent with the comprehensive statutory scheme, which provides alternative remedies (appeal, judicial review, Ombudsman), and there is no voluntary assumption of responsibility. The existence of some uncompensated losses does not justify implying a duty of care contrary to the legislative intent.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Charlotte Rowley; Appellant/claimant: Laura Rowley; Appellant/claimant: Alexander Rowley (by his Litigation Friend and sister Laura Rowley); Appellant/claimant: Denise Rowley; Respondent/defendant: Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (strike Out Application)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Statutory Interpretation, Public Authority Liability, Child Support
Tort Law Administrative Law Social Security Law Negligence Duty of Care Statutory Interpretation Public Authority Liability Child Support

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

Charlotte Rowley

Appellant/claimant

Laura Rowley

Appellant/claimant

Alexander Rowley (by his Litigation Friend and sister Laura Rowley)

Appellant/claimant

Denise Rowley

Appellant/claimant

Secretary of State for Department of Work and Pensions

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (strike Out Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secretary of State owes a common law duty of care to claimants in the performance of statutory functions under the Child Support Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether a claim for damages for negligence can lie against the Secretary of State for alleged maladministration by the Child Support Agency

Ratio Decidendi

A common law duty of care does not arise on the part of the Secretary of State in the performance of statutory functions under the Child Support Act 1991 because such a duty would be inconsistent with the comprehensive statutory scheme, which provides alternative remedies (appeal, judicial review, Ombudsman), and there is no voluntary assumption of responsibility. The existence of some uncompensated losses does not justify implying a duty of care contrary to the legislative intent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No common law duty of care owed by the Secretary of State; claims struck out.