Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2000] UKHL 47

In a landmark case concerning educational negligence, a local authority was held vicariously liable for its employed psychologist's failure to diagnose a pupil's dyslexia. The House of Lords established that educational professionals owe a direct duty of care to pupils.

Facts

This case comprised four conjoined appeals, all centred on the alleged failure of local education authorities (LEAs) or their employees to identify and provide for the special educational needs, specifically dyslexia, of pupils. The primary appellant, Pamela Phelps, attended schools under the Hillingdon London Borough Council. Despite showing clear signs of learning difficulties, an educational psychologist employed by the council failed to diagnose her with dyslexia in 1985. Consequently, appropriate educational provision was not made. Ms Phelps left school with poor qualifications, which she argued led to psychological difficulties and diminished employment prospects. She brought a claim against the council in negligence, alleging both direct liability for breach of statutory duty and vicarious liability for the negligence of its psychologist.

Issues

The central legal issues before the House of Lords were:
1. Whether an educational psychologist, teacher, or adviser employed by a local education authority owes a duty of care to a child to exercise reasonable skill and care in assessing their educational needs and providing appropriate advice and support.
2. If such a duty is owed by the employee, whether the employing local education authority can be held vicariously liable for a breach of that duty.
3. Whether a local education authority can be held directly liable in a common law action for damages for a breach of its statutory duties under the Education Acts (such as the Education Act 1944 or 1981).
4. Whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty of care, considering policy arguments about defensive practices and opening the ‘floodgates’ to litigation.

Judgment

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the appeal, finding in favour of Ms Phelps. It was held that a duty of care could and did exist in these circumstances.

Duty of Care and Vicarious Liability

The Lords held that the relationship between an educational psychologist or specialist teacher and a pupil was one of sufficient proximity to give rise to a duty of care. The professional assumes a responsibility towards the child when undertaking an assessment of their educational needs. Lord Slynn of Hadley, applying the three-stage test from Caparo Industries plc v Dickman, found that harm was foreseeable, proximity was established by the professional relationship, and it was fair, just, and reasonable to impose the duty. He famously drew an analogy with medical negligence:

If a doctor in the course of his employment by an education authority or a health authority carelessly writes a report which leads to a child wrongly being placed in a special school for those with learning difficulties with consequential emotional and other harm, I can see no reason why the doctor and the authority should not be liable in negligence.

On this basis, it was held that where an employee (the psychologist) was negligent in the performance of their professional duties, the employer (the LEA) was vicariously liable for the resulting harm. Lord Clyde affirmed this directly:

The relationship of the employee to the child is sufficiently proximate to give rise to a duty of care on the part of the employee. And if the employee is negligent in the performance of his duties, his employer, provided that the negligence was in the course of his employment, will be vicariously liable for it.

Breach of Statutory Duty

The court concluded that a breach of the statutory duties imposed on LEAs by the Education Acts did not, in itself, give rise to a private law claim for damages. The appropriate remedies for such breaches were statutory appeals or judicial review. However, the existence of this detailed statutory framework was considered crucial in helping to establish the relationship of proximity required to ground a common law duty of care.

Implications

The decision in Phelps was a landmark judgment that established the tort of ‘educational negligence’. It confirmed that children could sue education authorities for failures in identifying and addressing their special educational needs. The key legal implications were:
1. It affirmed that educational professionals, like those in other fields, owe a duty of care to those they are tasked to assist, and must meet the standard of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field.
2. It established that LEAs are vicariously liable for the professional negligence of their employees, including teachers and psychologists.
3. It rejected policy arguments that such liability would lead to defensive practices or unmanageable litigation, prioritising the right of a child to receive a remedy for negligently caused harm.
4. It clarified the relationship between statutory duties and common law negligence, establishing that while one does not directly give rise to a claim in damages, it can form the bedrock for establishing a common law duty of care.

Verdict: The appeal was allowed. The House of Lords held that the local education authority could be vicariously liable for the negligence of its employee.

Source: Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2000] UKHL 47