YXA v Wolverhampton City Council

YXA v Wolverhampton City Council

The pleaded facts do not disclose reasonable grounds for a common law duty of care against the local authority to institute care proceedings, either generally or by reason of providing 'respite care' under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. There is no sufficient assumption of responsibility or other exception to the general rule that no duty arises to protect from harm caused by third parties. The claim in negligence is therefore struck out.

Parties
Claimant: YXA (a protected party by his Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts); Defendant: Wolverhampton City Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence / Human Rights / Application to Strike Out Part of Claim (common Law Negligence) Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
Outcome
Application granted in part; common law negligence claim struck out; Human Rights Act claim to proceed.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Assumption of Responsibility, Duties of Local Authorities, Children Act 1989, Human Rights Act 1998, Strike Out Applications
Tort Law Public Law Child Law Human Rights Negligence Assumption of Responsibility Duties of Local Authorities Children Act 1989 +2 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 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YXA (a protected party by his Litigation Friend, The Official Solicitor to the Senior Courts)

Claimant

Wolverhampton City Council

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence / Human Rights / Application to Strike Out Part of Claim (common Law Negligence) Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a local authority owes a common law duty of care to a child to institute care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 in circumstances where the authority knows or ought to know the child is at risk of harm
  2. 2 Whether provision of 'respite care' (accommodation under section 20 Children Act 1989) gives rise to a duty of care to consider or initiate care proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the pleaded facts are sufficient to found an assumption of responsibility and thus a duty of care at common law

Ratio Decidendi

The pleaded facts do not disclose reasonable grounds for a common law duty of care against the local authority to institute care proceedings, either generally or by reason of providing 'respite care' under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. There is no sufficient assumption of responsibility or other exception to the general rule that no duty arises to protect from harm caused by third parties. The claim in negligence is therefore struck out.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; common law negligence claim struck out; Human Rights Act claim to proceed.

Orders

  • The claim in common law negligence is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a).
  • The Human Rights Act 1998 claim is not struck out and may proceed.