12 November, 2015
The Court of Appeal has now handed down its judgment in this seminal case in the field of Social Services claims.
This was an appeal by the Claimant - NA - and a cross-appeal by the Local Authority - Nottinghamshire County Council - against the first instance decision of Males J. Males J found that the Claimant's foster carers had physically and sexually assaulted her but held that there was no negligence on the part of her social workers. More importantly for the purposes of clarification on the law, Males J also rejected the Claimant's arguments that the Local Authority was vicariously liable for foster parents and that it owed a non-delegable duty of care to children in foster placements. Males J had found that it would be contrary to public policy to impose such a non-delegable duty, despite Sumption LJ's 5 criteria from Woodland v Essex County Council being made out.
Lady Justice Black and Lord Justices Tomlinson and Burnett unanimously rejected the Claimant's argument that a Local Authority can be held to be vicariously liable for foster parents. For the following various reasons:
As mentioned in Forbes' previous blog on the subject, for a Local Authority to control precisely how a foster parent provided family life to a child would, in our view be to undermine the very purpose of foster care.
Sumption LJ's fourth criteria demands that the delegated duty is an integral function of the positive duty assumed towards the Claimant. Tomlinson LJ's reasoning seems to be that, although a Local Authority has a positive duty to care for children, given that it cannot fulfil that function itself, it is one which can only be met by delegating it to others. It is only by delegating the care of children to be fostered that the Local Authority can discharge its duty.
Burnett LJ found that no non-delegable duty of care exists in this case. Burnett LJ appears to have found that, if an assault were capable of breaching a non-delegable duty of care, this would widen the duty to such an extent as to impose strict liability on Local Authorities.
Black LJ's findings appear to correlate most strongly with Forbes' own sentiments on the matter, agreeing with Males J that if a Local Authority could not delegate its duty to children to foster carers, then neither could they delegate it by placing them with relatives or even their parents.
This is a welcome decision for Local Authorities, clarifying the law on both vicarious liability and non-delegable duties and limiting liability for breach of a non-delegable duty of care to negligent acts, not assaults nor other criminal acts.