Selwood v Durham County Council & Ors

Selwood v Durham County Council & Ors

It is arguable that the NHS Trusts, through multi-agency protocols and close working arrangements, may have assumed responsibility to protect the claimant from foreseeable harm, and that it may be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care; striking out was inappropriate and the matter should proceed to trial.

Parties
Appellant: Claire Selwood; First Defendant: Durham County Council; Second Defendant: Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust; Third Defendant: Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Striking Out Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Negligence, Assumption of Responsibility, Article 2 ECHR, Public Policy, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Employment Law Human Rights Law Duty of Care Negligence Assumption of Responsibility Article 2 ECHR Public Policy +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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Selwood

Appellant

Durham County Council

First Defendant

Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Foundation Trust

Second Defendant

Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Striking Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether NHS Trusts owed a duty of care to the claimant in respect of criminal acts of a third party
  2. 2 Whether an assumption of responsibility can be inferred from multi-agency protocols and working arrangements
  3. 3 Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care in the circumstances

Ratio Decidendi

It is arguable that the NHS Trusts, through multi-agency protocols and close working arrangements, may have assumed responsibility to protect the claimant from foreseeable harm, and that it may be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care; striking out was inappropriate and the matter should proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Strike-out order set aside
  • Claims against second and third defendants to proceed to trial