‘Failure to Remove’ Claims – Supreme Court grants permission to appeal in two cases



The Supreme Court has today granted permission to appeal to the defendants in HXA v Surrey CC and YXA v Wolverhampton CC, in which the claimants advanced claims alleging negligence on the part of social workers in not taking action to remove them from the care of their parents/step-father and exposing them to continuing abuse and neglect.

By its judgment handed down on August 31st 2002 (neutral citation [2022] EWCA Civ 1196, reported at [2023] 1 WLR 116) the Court of Appeal allowed the claimants’ appeals against the striking out of their claims.

It is to be hoped that the Supreme Court will provide guidance as to the circumstances, if any, as to when a social worker exercising child protection functions can assume responsibility towards a child in the local authority’s area so as to give rise to a common law duty of care.

The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal in a third case, Champion v Surrey CC, which had come before it by an unconventional route. The defendant’s application to strike out had been dismissed by HHJ Roberts at first instance. Permission to appeal to the High Court was granted. The claimant then applied for the appeal to be transferred direct to the Court of Appeal, which listed it for consideration after the HXA and YXA judgments were given. Since the outcome of HXA and YXA inevitably would have led to the dismissal of the defendant’s appeal in Champion, the appeal was dismissed by consent. The Supreme Court said that it was only in “unusual circumstances” that it would give permission to appeal against an order made by consent and there was no judgment of a court below on some of the issues raised by the claimants in the Amended Particulars of Claim. The refusal of permission in that case is unfortunate, because a much wider range of arguments is relied on in support of a duty of care in that case, and those arguments will probably not now be considered by the Supreme Court.

Lord Edward Faulks KC and Paul Stagg act for the defendants in both HXA (on instructions from DWF LLP) and YXA (on instructions from Browne Jacobson LLP).

Featured Counsel

Edward Faulks KC

Call 1973 | Silk 1996

Paul Stagg KC

Call 1994 | Silk 2024

Latest News & Events

Personal Injury Briefing: June 2024

Welcome to the latest edition of the Deka Personal Injury team briefing. In this edition we will be focusing on ‘Witness Statements’ and ‘Fundamental Dishonesty and Indemnity Costs.’ Laura Hibberd provides some very helpful guidance through a series of ‘cautionary tales.’  It may be said…

The Contaminated Blood Scandal: Part 1 – the background

In the 1970’s the NHS had an almost insatiable need for blood. New treatments needed large quantities of “hema” and a scientific discovery gave a group of sick individuals a reprieve (or so they thought) from their suffering.   Haemophiliacs lack a specific protein, factor…

The Dekagram: 10th June 2024

Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC) – a case highlighting the dangers of getting involved in the preparation of experts’ joint statements This judgment follows an application by the claimants within proceedings seeking permission to replace…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

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

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


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