CN v Poole Borough Council

Articles, News

06/06/2019

Executive Summary of the Decision of the Supreme Court

Handed Down on June 6th 2019

The Supreme Court dismissed the claimants’ appeal on a unanimous basis, upholding the striking out of their claims by the Court of Appeal. Lord Reed gave the single judgment with which all the other members of the court agreed.

The basis of the judgment is twofold:

  • The council owed the claimants no duty of care at common law in relation to the exercising of its child protection functions with a view to removing them from their mother’s care.
  • There was no basis for the claimants’ assertion that the council would have been able to remove them from their mother’s care even if it had sought to do so.

Lord Reed reaffirmed the distinction that was re-emphasised in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police and in his own judgment in Robinson v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police between positive acts which cause personal injury and failures to protect individuals from harm caused by the actions of third parties.

On its facts, this case fell into the latter category. No duty of care would therefore be owed unless the case could be found to fall into one of the exceptions to the rule that there could be no liability in negligence for failing to confer a benefit on the claimant: creation of the danger by the defendant, a sufficient level of control over the third party causing the damage, or an assumption of responsibility to the claimant.

The council did not create the danger to the claimants by placing them near to the family whose anti-social behaviour caused the damage.

There was no arguable assumption of responsibility on the pleaded facts. In contrast with the position of a clinician or an educational professional, a child’s parent or guardian did not place reliance on the opinions and actions of a social worker so as to give rise to an assumption of responsibility. The mere operation of the statutory scheme for child protection by the council was not sufficient.

In any event, it was not arguable that the council could have obtained a care order authorising the claimants’ removal from their mother.

Prepared by Paul Stagg of 1 Chancery Lane, first junior counsel for the respondent council. This executive summary was drafted along with a detailed briefing note which analyses the CN litigation and its implications in detail. If you would like a copy of the detailed briefing note, please email sbarrow@1chancerylane.com.

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 12th May 2025

This week Thomas Yarrow revisits the vexed question of the use of artificial intelligence in legal research – and our intrepid reporter finds that it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. In fact the experience led him to such depths of despair that he…

The Dekagram: 6th May 2025

This week Ben Rodgers relays two tales from the coalface, both relating to applications to resile from admissions. Readers will be interested to know that in both cases the court applied the balance of prejudice test with the result that the defendants’ applications were refused….

The Dekagram: 28th April 2025

This week Conor Kennedy considers a novel point of construction in relation to challenging service of claim forms; the headline is that defendants must take steps to mount a jurisdictional challenge within the tight deadlines provided for in the CPR, but Conor asks whether this…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2025

Search

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Portfolio
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)