Barrett v London Borough of Enfield [1999] UKHL 25 (17 June 1999)

A child taken into care at 10 months alleged the local authority negligently failed in its duty of care during his upbringing, causing psychiatric illness. The House of Lords allowed the appeal against strike out, holding that claims against local authorities for negligent exercise of child care duties are not automatically non-justiciable and should proceed to trial.

Facts

The appellant was born in October 1972 and taken into care by the respondent local authority in 1973 following injuries inflicted by his mother. He remained in care until age 17, during which time he was placed with foster parents and in residential homes on multiple occasions (approximately nine placements). He alleged the authority negligently failed to arrange his adoption, made unsuitable placements, failed to properly supervise his care, failed to obtain appropriate psychiatric treatment, and mismanaged his reintroduction to his mother after 11 years of separation.

The appellant claimed these failures caused him to leave care at 18 with no family attachments, suffering from psychiatric illness, self-harm tendencies, behavioural problems, alcohol dependency, and inability to maintain employment or relationships.

Procedural History

The respondent applied to strike out the claim. The District Judge refused, but Judge Brandt allowed the strike out, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal held that decisions involving statutory discretion were not justiciable and that it would not be just and reasonable to impose a duty of care.

Issues

1. Whether a local authority owes a common law duty of care to a child in its care regarding decisions about the child’s upbringing and welfare.

2. Whether claims alleging negligence in the exercise of statutory discretion are non-justiciable.

3. Whether it would be just and reasonable to impose such a duty of care.

4. Whether the claim should be struck out on grounds that causation could not be established.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal and permitted the action to proceed to trial.

Statutory Discretion and Justiciability

Lord Slynn held that the decision in X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County Council did not conclude the present case. The key distinction was that in Bedfordshire, the children were not in care and the decisions concerned whether to remove children from their families. Here, the child was already in care, and the authority’s subsequent decisions about his welfare were of a different character.

Lord Slynn emphasised that not all decisions involving statutory discretion are non-justiciable. Only where decisions involve weighing competing public interests, allocating limited financial resources, or matters of policy which courts are ill-equipped to assess should they be held non-justiciable.

Just and Reasonable

Lord Hutton rejected the analogy between a local authority and a parent. While parents should not be liable for decisions about upbringing, local authorities must make decisions parents never face, such as whether to place for adoption or with foster parents. Local authorities employ trained staff to make such decisions, and there is no reason why they should escape liability if those decisions constitute a failure to take reasonable care.

The policy considerations from Bedfordshire were held to be less potent in this context. The interdisciplinary system was less relevant where the child was already in care. The risk of defensive practice was acknowledged but not given great weight where conduct can be measured against reasonable standards.

Causation

The House declined to strike out on causation grounds. Causation is largely a question of fact requiring investigation. Medical evidence suggested that negligent management of care was a significant causal determinant of the appellant’s psychological difficulties.

Standard of Care

Lord Hutton emphasised that the standard of care must reflect the difficult nature of the decisions involved. A plaintiff must show conduct going beyond mere errors of judgment and constituting negligence.

Implications

This decision significantly developed the law on local authority liability for child welfare decisions. It established that:

1. The taking of a child into care does not immunise subsequent decisions about that child’s welfare from negligence claims.

2. The policy/operational distinction does not provide blanket immunity; each case requires careful analysis of whether the decision involves policy matters unsuitable for judicial resolution.

3. Claims should generally not be struck out in this developing area of law where facts need investigation.

4. The comparison between local authorities and parents is not apt for decisions which parents never have to make.

The case represented an important step in holding public authorities accountable for the care of vulnerable children while recognising the difficult nature of such work and the need for appropriate standards of care.

Verdict: Appeal allowed. The striking out order was set aside and the action was permitted to proceed to trial.

Source: Barrett v London Borough of Enfield [1999] UKHL 25 (17 June 1999)