Roberts v The Attorney General & Anor [2016] EWHC 3219 (QB) (20 December 2016)

Roberts v The Attorney General & Anor [2016] EWHC 3219 (QB) (20 December 2016)

The appeal is allowed because there was no evidential basis to assume that the second defendant's advice was given pursuant to a statutory function, and the particulars of claim assert that the advice was outside the scope of any statutory direction. Therefore, the claim should not have been struck out and must proceed to trial to determine the existence and breach of any duty of care.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3219
Parties
Claimant: Howard Gray Roberts; 1st Defendant: The Attorney General; 2nd Defendant: Kate Flannery
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim at First Instance
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Statutory Powers, Police Appointments
Tort Law Public Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Statutory Powers Police Appointments

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Howard Gray Roberts

Claimant

The Attorney General

1st Defendant

Kate Flannery

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Order Striking Out Claim at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a duty of care is owed by HMIC to a candidate in the context of advice given to a police authority selection panel
  2. 2 Whether advice given by HMIC was pursuant to a statutory function excluding a common law duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the claim should be struck out in the absence of evidence of the scope of statutory directions

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because there was no evidential basis to assume that the second defendant's advice was given pursuant to a statutory function, and the particulars of claim assert that the advice was outside the scope of any statutory direction. Therefore, the claim should not have been struck out and must proceed to trial to determine the existence and breach of any duty of care.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order striking out the claim set aside
  • Claim to proceed to trial for determination of duty of care and breach, if necessary