Irune Pedrayes Varela v Buckswood School Limited

A school owes a child in its care a duty to take reasonable care in all the circumstances. The duty may require accurate and prompt communication with parents where the school knows that a child has taken drugs, is displaying significant symptoms and has required hospital assessment. The child’s vulnerabilities, age and the school’s degree of control are relevant to the scope and standard of care. The duty does not require all-pervasive supervision or the elimination of every risk of drug use. A school is not negligent merely because students obtain or use drugs despite reasonable preventive systems. The Bolam test is unlikely to govern predominantly health and safety issues, although it may be relevant to aspects of managing special educational needs.

The claimant was a 14-year-old full-time boarder at the defendant school. She alleged that the school was negligent in failing to inform her parents promptly and accurately after she admitted taking drugs and presented with paranoid and manic symptoms; in failing to manage her additional needs in accordance with psychological advice; and in failing to prevent access to drugs or supervise her adequately.

Causation and quantum were agreed subject to liability. The issues were therefore whether the duties alleged existed, the applicable standard of care, and whether the school was in breach.

1. Issue 1. The school owed the claimant a duty to protect her as a vulnerable child in its care. Her boarding status gave the school a particularly high degree of control, and the school knew of her psychological vulnerabilities. The school’s First Aid Policy required parents to be contacted as soon as possible where a pupil suffered an injury.
2. The school knew that the claimant had admitted taking drugs, was displaying visual disturbance and obvious paranoid and manic symptoms, and had been taken to hospital because of those symptoms. It should have told her parents promptly that she had taken drugs, that the symptoms were associated with that admission, and that hospital assessment had followed. The school’s failure to provide that information was negligent.
3. The claimant’s claim on Issue 1 succeeded. Causation and quantum were not determined because they had been agreed subject to breach. Judgment was entered for the claimant for £145,000, comprising £60,000 general damages and £85,000 special damages, inclusive of interest.
4. Issue 2. The evidence showed that the school had considered the psychologist’s guidance, prepared a welfare plan, circulated relevant information and made sustained efforts to manage the claimant’s behaviour. The claimant did not establish that the school acted contrary to that guidance or negligently managed her additional needs. The Bolam test was potentially relevant to aspects of this issue, but no supporting expert evidence was adduced.
5. Issue 3. The evidence did not establish a systemic failure, a culture of tolerance, or inadequate implementation of the school’s drug-control measures. Nor did the fact that students were able to use a drug unnoticed on a large school site establish negligence or reverse the burden of proof. The school’s duty was to take reasonable care and provide reasonable supervision, not to provide all-pervasive supervision. The claim on Issue 3 was dismissed.