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 court held that the claimants' allegations amounted to omissions or failures to confer a benefit, not positive acts giving rise to an assumption of responsibility. The facts pleaded did not amount to 'something more' than the exercise of statutory functions and were indistinguishable from binding authority (notably N v Poole and DFX v Coventry), which preclude a duty of care in such circumstances. The law is now settled and the claims were properly struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing a negligence claim against the local authorities.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2974
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 (civil) / Appeal Against Strike Out of Negligence Claims at First Instance
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence by Public Authorities, Assumption of Responsibility, Strike Out Applications, Child Protection Duties, Duty of Care, Developing Area of Law
Tort Law Public Law Child Protection Negligence by Public Authorities Assumption of Responsibility Strike Out Applications Child Protection Duties Duty of Care +1 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 (civil) / Appeal Against Strike Out of Negligence Claims at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether local authorities assumed responsibility so as to owe a duty of care to claimants in the exercise of child protection functions prior to a care order
  2. 2 Whether the law in this area is sufficiently settled to justify strike out
  3. 3 Whether the existence of parallel claims (e.g. under the Human Rights Act) affects the appropriateness of strike out

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants' allegations amounted to omissions or failures to confer a benefit, not positive acts giving rise to an assumption of responsibility. The facts pleaded did not amount to 'something more' than the exercise of statutory functions and were indistinguishable from binding authority (notably N v Poole and DFX v Coventry), which preclude a duty of care in such circumstances. The law is now settled and the claims were properly struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing a negligence claim against the local authorities.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Negligence claims against local authorities struck out
  • Proceedings to continue only in respect of any surviving claims (e.g. HRA claims or claims relating to school context in HXA)