X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] UKHL 9; [1995] 2 AC 633
The existence of a duty of care where a statutory duty exists and may have been breached
Facts
The House of Lords dealt with various appeals in respect of alleged breaches of statutory duty by local authorities in relation to the care of children. Some of the appeals related to child welfare issues under the provisions of the Children Act 1989, while others related to education duties imposed on local education authorities by the Education Acts 1944 and 1981. The facts of the various appeals were not connected, save as in relation to the connection between a private law remedy in negligence and breaches of statutory duty. These were applications to strike out the claims: the alleged facts were assumed to be true for that purpose, but had not been proved.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Issue
The issues related to the circumstances where a common law duty of care would be imposed on a local authority for a breach of its statutory duty.
Held
(1) A breach of statutory duty does not automatically give rise to a private law cause of action. It will only do so if the statutory duty protects a limited class and if Parliament intended a private law right to arise.
(2) A separate claim in negligence requires a duty of care under ordinary common law principles. Careless performance of a statutory duty is not, by itself, a cause of action.
(3) If the actions complained of fall within statutory discretion, they are not actionable at common law unless the decision is so unreasonable as to fall outside the proper exercise of the discretion. Even then, a duty of care does not automatically follow; non-justiciable policy decisions remain outside the court’s assessment.
(4) The child-protection duties relied on, including Children Act 1989, s 17, did not confer a private right to damages for breach of statutory duty.
(5) The House held that it was not just and reasonable to impose the alleged common law duties in the Bedfordshire and Newham child-protection cases. Its reasons included the inter-agency statutory system, the difficult balance between protecting children and preserving families, and the risk of defensive decision-making.
(6) On these child-protection facts, the majority held that the social workers and psychiatrist had been retained to advise the authorities, not to advise or treat the children, and had not assumed the alleged professional duties to the plaintiffs. The vicarious liability claims therefore failed. Lord Nolan agreed with the result on public policy grounds, but disagreed with that analysis of the professional relationship.
(7) A duty of care was not imposed on local education authorities in exercising the statutory discretions concerning special educational needs under the Education Act 1981.
(8) Where a local authority offers psychological advice to the public, it must do so with reasonable care. The Dorset claim concerning the psychology service could therefore proceed, subject to the facts and statutory context established at trial.
(9) Headteachers and advisory teachers could owe pupils a duty to exercise reasonable professional skill in advising on their educational needs. Claims based on negligent advice by educational psychologists and other professionals were also capable of proceeding; this was not a finding that negligence had occurred.
The child-protection appeals were dismissed. In Dorset and Bromley, claims based on negligent exercise of statutory discretions were struck out, while the remaining potentially sustainable negligence claims could proceed. Hampshire’s appeal and the Bromley cross-appeal were dismissed.
Other reports: [1995] 3 WLR 152; [1995] 3 All ER 353; [1995] 2 FLR 276; [1995] 3 FCR 337; 94 LGR 313; (1995) 7 Admin LR 705; [1995] Fam Law 537.
