Ennis -v- The Child and Family Agency & Anor [2015] IECA 105 (18 May 2015)

Ennis -v- The Child and Family Agency & Anor [2015] IECA 105 (18 May 2015)

The CFA did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff for damage caused by third parties after Ms. A's tenancy ended, as the CFA had no control over the perpetrators, no statutory power over Ms. A as an adult, and the damage was not reasonably foreseeable. The imposition of liability would be neither fair, just, nor reasonable.

Citation
[2015] IECA 105
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Teresa Ennis; Defendant/appellant: The Child and Family Agency; Defendant: Jarlath Egan
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
18 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court decision overturned.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Liability for Acts of Third Parties, Foreseeability, Negligence of Public Authorities
Tort Law Negligence Duty of Care Liability for Acts of Third Parties Foreseeability Negligence of Public Authorities

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teresa Ennis

Plaintiff/respondent

The Child and Family Agency

Defendant/appellant

Jarlath Egan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Child and Family Agency (CFA) owed a duty of care to the plaintiff for damage caused by third parties after a former care leaver's tenancy ended
  2. 2 Whether the CFA was negligent in arranging independent living for Ms. A
  3. 3 Whether the damage was reasonably foreseeable and attributable to the CFA

Ratio Decidendi

The CFA did not owe a duty of care to the plaintiff for damage caused by third parties after Ms. A's tenancy ended, as the CFA had no control over the perpetrators, no statutory power over Ms. A as an adult, and the damage was not reasonably foreseeable. The imposition of liability would be neither fair, just, nor reasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision overturned.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Child and Family Agency; claim against it dismissed.