Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
A v Essex County Council
[2002] EWHC 2707 (QB), [2003] 1 FLR 615, [2003] Fam Law 148, [2003] NLJR 22, [2003] PIQR P21, (2003) Times, 24 January, [2002] All ER (D) 273 (Dec)
Court: QBD
Judgment Date: 18/12/2002
Case History
Annotations | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
- | A v Essex County Council | [2003] EWCA Civ 1848, [2004] 1 WLR 1881, [2004] LGR 587, [2004] 1 FCR 660, [2004] 1 FLR 749, (2004) Times, 22 January, 148 Sol Jo LB 27, [2003] All ER (D) 321 (Dec) | CA | 17/12/200 | |
Affirming | A v Essex County Council | [2002] EWHC 2707 (QB), [2003] 1 FLR 615, [2003] Fam Law 148, [2003] NLJR 22, [2003] PIQR P21, (2003) Times, 24 January, [2002] All ER (D) 273 (Dec) | QBD | 18/12/200 |
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon, Anderton v Clwyd County Council, Jarvis v Hampshire County Council, Re G (a minor) | [2001] 2 AC 619, [2000] 4 All ER 504, [2000] 3 WLR 776, [2000] LGR 651, [2000] 3 FCR 102, [2000] ELR 499, 56 BMLR 1, [2000] NLJR 1198, 144 Sol Jo LB 241, [2000] All ER (D) 1076 | HL | 27/07/200 |
NEGLIGENCE - DUTY OF CARE - LOCAL AUTHORITY - ADOPTION - DUTY TO PROVIDE PROSPECTIVE ADOPTIVE PARENTS WITH RELEVANT INFORMATION
The claimants, a married couple, were prospective adoptive parents. The defendant authority was the relevant adoption agency pursuant to the Adoption Act 1976. The adoption panel recommended two children, a brother and sister, for adoption. The male child had serious behavioural and emotional problems. The claimants agreed to have the children placed with them. They alleged that they found the male child impossible to control, to such an extent that he damaged their home, health and family life. At the end of the placement, the claimants went on to adopt both children. The claimants sought damages from the authority, arguing, inter alia, that it had been negligent in that its social workers who had dealt with the adoption had failed to inform them of the extent of the male child's difficulties of which they had known, and that had the claimants been properly informed, they would not have agreed to the placement. The authority denied that it owed the claimants a duty of care, and that if it did, that it had been negligent. Only liability was at issue.
Held - A person exercising a particular skill or profession might owe a duty of care in its performance to those who might foreseeably be injured if its skill was exercised carelessly. It was plain that a child with serious behavioural problems, particularly one displaying violence towards property and people, was foreseeably likely to cause injury. Moreover, there was sufficient proximity between prospective adoptive parents and the social workers dealing with the adoption. In the circumstances, it was reasonable to impose a duty of care, since it was in the public interest that professionals and those with special skills who were paid to offer their skills to the public, should act to the appropriate standard. It followed that the social workers who had dealt with the adoption had owed the claimants a duty of care, and the authority was vicariously liable for any breaches established. On the evidence, the social workers had failed to provide the claimants with all the relevant information of which they knew, and as such had acted in breach of duty. Had the claimants been aware of that information, they would not have taken the placement and therefore causation had been established for loss suffered during the placement. However, during the placement, the claimants came to know the substance of the information that they had not been given previously, and as a result, any loss suffered by them after the adoption was not caused by the authority's negligence. Accordingly, judgment was given for the claimants.
