DS & Anor v Gloucestershire CC & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 72 (14 March 2000)

DS & Anor v Gloucestershire CC & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 72 (14 March 2000)

Following the House of Lords decision in Barrett v. Enfield, claims against local authorities for negligence in the placement, supervision, or investigation of abuse of children in care are not automatically precluded by public policy or statutory scheme. Whether a duty of care exists and whether the acts or omissions are justiciable depend on the facts and the distinction between policy and operational decisions. It is not appropriate to strike out such claims at a preliminary stage unless it is clear they cannot succeed in law.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 72
Parties
Appellant/claimant: D. S.; Respondent/defendant: Gloucestershire County Council; Appellant/claimant: R. L.; Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Tower Hamlets; Respondent/defendant: London Borough of Havering
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim for No Reasonable Cause of Action
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders striking out claims set aside.
Legal Topics
Negligence of Local Authorities, Vicarious Liability, Duty of Care in Child Care Context, Strike Out Applications, Justiciability of Public Authority Decisions
Tort Law Public Law Child Protection Negligence of Local Authorities Vicarious Liability Duty of Care in Child Care Context Strike Out Applications Justiciability of Public Authority Decisions

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

D. S.

Appellant/claimant

Gloucestershire County Council

Respondent/defendant

R. L.

Appellant/claimant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Respondent/defendant

London Borough of Havering

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim for No Reasonable Cause of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether local authorities owe a common law duty of care to children in foster care for negligent placement, supervision, or failure to investigate abuse
  2. 2 Whether claims against local authorities for operational negligence by social workers are justiciable
  3. 3 Whether public policy precludes such claims

Ratio Decidendi

Following the House of Lords decision in Barrett v. Enfield, claims against local authorities for negligence in the placement, supervision, or investigation of abuse of children in care are not automatically precluded by public policy or statutory scheme. Whether a duty of care exists and whether the acts or omissions are justiciable depend on the facts and the distinction between policy and operational decisions. It is not appropriate to strike out such claims at a preliminary stage unless it is clear they cannot succeed in law.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders striking out claims set aside.

Orders

  • Claims to proceed to trial for factual investigation and determination of justiciability and liability.