Fegan v Police Service of Northern Ireland [2010] NICA 17 (10 May 2010)

Fegan v Police Service of Northern Ireland [2010] NICA 17 (10 May 2010)

The police did not owe a duty of care to the appellant in making statements to his employer regarding his fitness for employment following a criminal investigation. There was no evidence of an assumption of responsibility by the police to the appellant, and the actions were closely related to the police's public duty to prevent crime and protect children. Imposing a duty would be contrary to public policy and the principles established in Hill and Brooks.

Citation
[2010] NICA 17
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Sean Fegan; Defendants Respondents: Assistant Chief Constable E W Anderson and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
10 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligent Misstatement, Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Public Policy Immunity, Child Protection, Police Powers
Tort Law Police Law Employment Law Negligent Misstatement Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Public Policy Immunity Child Protection +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 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sean Fegan

Plaintiff Appellant

Assistant Chief Constable E W Anderson and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland

Defendants Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the police owed a duty of care to the appellant when informing his employer of their view on his fitness for employment following an investigation into allegations of sexual abuse
  2. 2 Whether the police assumed responsibility to the appellant under the Hedley Byrne principle
  3. 3 Whether the trial judge was correct to direct dismissal on the basis of no duty of care

Ratio Decidendi

The police did not owe a duty of care to the appellant in making statements to his employer regarding his fitness for employment following a criminal investigation. There was no evidence of an assumption of responsibility by the police to the appellant, and the actions were closely related to the police's public duty to prevent crime and protect children. Imposing a duty would be contrary to public policy and the principles established in Hill and Brooks.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim dismissed
  • Direction granted in favour of the respondents