Thread by @AdamWagner1

My heart sank when I saw that appellant lost in @UKSupremeCourt case of Poole Borough Council v GN, on whether local authorities can be sued in common law negligence when they fail to protect children under their care

But then I read the judgment!

supremecourt.uk/cases/uksc-201…

You can read an analysis from the @DoughtyStreet website here doughtystreet.co.uk/news/landmark-…

@caoilfhionnanna Aswini Weereratne QC and Nick Brown acted for two intervenors

My old colleague the formidable Lizanne Gumbel QC was for the appellant

Basically, the appellants lost on the particulars facts but the Supreme Court completely rejected the Court of Appeal's reasoning, which would have put a stop to claims in negligence against local authorities for failing their child protection duties.

Here are some key paragraphs which I have extracted - the law as it now stands (following from the important police negligence case, Robinson) is in paragraph 65.

The question of whether a public authority owes a duty in negligence is fact sensitive. This is good!

The Supreme Court said that Lord Justice Irwin got the decision right but the reasoning wrong.

(1) Question of 'assumption of responsibility' (basically now the test for whether common law duty of care arises) doesn't revolve on whether body is carrying out a statutory function

(2) There is no valid public policy argument to exclude liability for public authorities protecting children. This is back to the pre-Irwin LJ position, and is good news as it follows the general direction of the law since the Human Rights Act came into force

(3) Public authorities are no different to companies or individuals. If they assume responsibility, and a claim in negligence isn't explicitly ruled out by statue, then they owe a duty of care. This is good! Why should public authorities be exempt from consequences of messing up?

(4) Irwin LJ was wrong to conclude that there is never liability for the wrong doing of a third party

(5) On these particular facts (which relate to a council housing a family next to violent people) the duty didn't arise. But it might in other cases, even in other similar cases where the assumption of responsibility was more explicit. Fact-sensitive

(6) Even where the nature of the function doesn't obviously look like assumption of responsibility, the way the authority subsequently behaves may change that. This is right! Fact sensitive

Basically, this is such an important decision and although the appellants lost on the facts, they have mostly won on the principle which will ensure that local authorities and other public bodies can be held responsible for failing their duty of care towards children

Please let me know if I have missed anything/got something wrong as this is based on a pretty quick reading of the judgment

One other point about this judgment which it is easy to forget but so important. It is probably the end of a long road which started with the Human Rights Act changing the way courts understand the responsibilities of public authorities towards citizens and particularly children

It's a story which begins with Z v UK in 2001 (also a Lizanne Gumbel case) where the European Court of Human Rights said that social services were responsible at least in human rights law for failing to protect children from terrible abuse and neglect bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/…

Z v UK led to the UK Court of Appeal case of D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust in 2003 where the courts said that since the Human Rights Act came into force, it was no longer right to exclude local authorities from liability in negligence claims relating to child abuse

Supreme Court today (following a line of decisions e.g. Robinson) have effectively brought common law in line with European Court of Human Rights, on a principled basis, in a way which doesn't rely on the Human Rights Act to anchor it. A victory for common sense and human rights!

I know a lot of other lawyers have been involved in these cases but I think one of the true and mostly unsung (outside of the profession) heroes is Lizanne Gumbel QC of @1CrownOfficeRow who has acted in nearly all key cases and has won them all (even when, as today, she lost!)