DJ v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

DJ v Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

The relationship between the local authority and the G family was not sufficiently akin to employment to justify vicarious liability. The Gs were engaged in the distinct activity of raising their nephew, motivated by family ties, and not as part of the local authority’s enterprise. The activity was sufficiently separate from the statutory obligations of the local authority to avoid the imposition of vicarious liability.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: DJ; Respondent/defendant: Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council; Part 20 Defendant: AG
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Vicarious Liability, Foster Care, Sexual Abuse, Personal Injury
Tort Law Child Law Vicarious Liability Foster Care Sexual Abuse Personal Injury

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DJ

Appellant/claimant

Barnsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Respondent/defendant

AG

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority is vicariously liable for tortious acts (sexual abuse) committed by a foster parent who is a relative of the claimant.

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between the local authority and the G family was not sufficiently akin to employment to justify vicarious liability. The Gs were engaged in the distinct activity of raising their nephew, motivated by family ties, and not as part of the local authority’s enterprise. The activity was sufficiently separate from the statutory obligations of the local authority to avoid the imposition of vicarious liability.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order of the Recorder is upheld; the Defendant is not vicariously liable for the sexual abuse perpetrated by Mr G.
  • Anonymity orders for the claimant and Part 20 Defendant continue.