B v Reading Borough Council & Ors

A local authority is not ordinarily liable in negligence to a parent suspected of abusing a child where establishing liability requires proof that social workers acted negligently in investigating the suspected abuse. The conflict, or potential conflict, between the child’s interests and the suspected parent’s interests applies whether the authority’s liability is pleaded as direct or vicarious. The reasoning in D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23 therefore defeats both forms of claim on the assumed facts. A direct duty to a suspected parent is not impossible in every case, but the pleaded duty failed here. Claims in misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure remained arguable.

B brought proceedings arising from investigations by social workers and police into allegations that he had sexually abused his daughter, L. The allegations were rejected after care and contact proceedings. B claimed damages, including for psychiatric injury, against the local authorities and police.

Keith J had struck out negligence claims based on the local authority’s vicarious liability for social workers. He later permitted B to re-re-amend his particulars to allege a direct duty requiring the local authority to maintain appropriate systems, policies, supervision, training and records. The local authority appealed. The central issue was whether the reasoning in D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust precluded the pleaded direct-duty claim.

1. Appeal allowed. The local authority’s appeal against permission to re-re-amend the particulars of claim to rely on an alleged direct duty of care owed to B was allowed. The appropriate state of the pleadings was to be reconsidered in the light of the judgment.
2. The majority reasoning in D v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23 applied to both vicarious and direct liability. Where liability depended on showing that social workers would have acted differently had the authority maintained proper systems, instructions and supervision, B still had to establish that a social worker acted below the standard of a reasonably competent social worker. The conflict or potential conflict between the child’s interests and those of a parent suspected of abuse therefore remained the same.
3. Since the social workers owed no actionable duty in damages to B under the principles in D, the local authority could not be liable on the pleaded direct duty. The court did not decide that a direct duty to a suspected parent was impossible in every case. The pleaded duty failed because breach and causation necessarily depended on negligent conduct by the social workers.
4. The court refused B an extension of time to seek permission to appeal against the earlier order striking out the vicarious negligence claims. Even if time had been extended, permission would have been refused because the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success. The social workers had not arguably assumed responsibility to B, since the perceived risk to L meant that the conflict with B’s interests continued.
5. The court reiterated the usual caution on strike-out applications, especially in developing areas of law, but held that this was a plain case in the light of D. Misfeasance in public office and conspiracy to injure remained arguable. The court also stressed the need for robust case management to avoid further satellite litigation and delay.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): allowed the local authority’s appeal against Keith J’s order permitting re-re-amendment to plead a direct duty of care, and refused an extension of time for B to seek permission to appeal the earlier strike-out order.
• Queens Bench Division: Keith J had struck out the negligence claims based on vicarious liability and later permitted the proposed direct-duty amendments, subject to a reservation concerning contact and parental participation.