Bluett v Suffolk County Council & Ors

Bluett v Suffolk County Council & Ors

The claim against Suffolk County Council should not be struck out or summarily dismissed at this stage because, taking the claimant’s case at its highest and in light of possible further disclosure, there is a viable and pleadable case that the Council, through its social worker, may have assumed responsibility and owed a duty of care in relation to the suitability and safety of The Foyer. The claim has some real prospect of success and should proceed to trial.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Jennifer Bluett; First Defendant/respondent: Suffolk County Council; Second Defendant: Anglia Housing Group Limited; Third Defendant: The Foyer for Ipswich Limited; Fourth Defendant: Wherry Housing Association Limited; Fifth Defendant: Malcolm Frank George Markwell; Sixth Defendant: Nighthawk Security Limited; Seventh Defendant: Richard Ceri Marjoram; Eighth Defendant: Sarah Rachel Davey; Ninth Defendant: Joanne Claire Blowers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Summary Dismissal/strike Out in Queen’s Bench Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligence of Public Authorities, Duty of Care, Children Act 1989, Strike Out and Summary Judgment, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Public Law Child Law Negligence of Public Authorities Duty of Care Children Act 1989 Strike Out and Summary Judgment 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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Bluett

Claimant/appellant

Suffolk County Council

First Defendant/respondent

Anglia Housing Group Limited

Second Defendant

The Foyer for Ipswich Limited

Third Defendant

Wherry Housing Association Limited

Fourth Defendant

Malcolm Frank George Markwell

Fifth Defendant

Nighthawk Security Limited

Sixth Defendant

Richard Ceri Marjoram

Seventh Defendant

Sarah Rachel Davey

Eighth Defendant

Joanne Claire Blowers

Ninth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Summary Dismissal/strike Out in Queen’s Bench Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Suffolk County Council owed a common law duty of care to the claimant under the Children Act 1989 and/or at common law
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action in negligence against the Council
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed before trial

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against Suffolk County Council should not be struck out or summarily dismissed at this stage because, taking the claimant’s case at its highest and in light of possible further disclosure, there is a viable and pleadable case that the Council, through its social worker, may have assumed responsibility and owed a duty of care in relation to the suitability and safety of The Foyer. The claim has some real prospect of success and should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to amend particulars of claim granted within the framework indicated in the judgment
  • Claimant to tender proposed amendment by 14 January 2005; if not objected to within 14 days, amendment may be made without further order; if objected to, objection to be determined by a Queen’s Bench Master