FXS v Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited

Battery does not require hostile intent. The relevant questions are whether intentional force was applied without consent, outside ordinary acceptable contact, and without lawful excuse. A school may use reasonable and proportionate force, including temporary detention or seclusion, to protect pupils and staff, prevent property damage, and maintain good order. School policies and departmental guidance inform the assessment but do not determine lawfulness. Each incident must be assessed on its facts, including available alternatives, training, risk and proportionality. Aggravated damages compensate additional injury to feelings caused by egregious conduct beyond the wrong itself. Injury caused by the assault and its context belongs in basic damages, so double recovery must be avoided.

FXS, a child resident at a special school, brought claims in negligence, battery and false imprisonment arising from restraint and the use of a towel to hold his bedroom door partly closed. The High Court dismissed the negligence claim but found three face-down restraints to be batteries and fourteen towel incidents to be false imprisonment. It awarded compensatory and aggravated damages. The school appealed against liability and, alternatively, the aggravated damages. The central issues were whether hostile intent was required for battery, whether the towel method constituted imprisonment and was lawfully justified, and whether the aggravated damages awards were principled.

1. Disposition. The appeal was allowed in part. The findings of battery in respect of the three face-down incidents were upheld. The findings of false imprisonment in respect of the towel incidents and the related damages were set aside. The aggravated damages awarded in respect of the batteries were quashed, but the compensatory damages for those incidents remained.
2. Battery. Per Lord Justice Popplewell, with Lord Justices Moylan and Bean agreeing, hostile intent is not an ingredient of battery. The court adopted a formulation requiring intentional application of force, however slight, without express or implied consent, outside physical contact generally acceptable in ordinary life, and without lawful excuse. The reasoning in Wilson v Pringle [1987] 1 QB 237 requiring hostility was disapproved. The approach in Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172 and In Re F (Mental Patient; sterilisation) [1990] 2 AC 1 supported the formulation.
3. School restraint and detention. The lawful-excuse question required an assessment under section 87 of the Children Act 1989 and section 93(1) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. Section 93(1) extends to temporary detention or seclusion where reasonable for its statutory purposes, and section 93(5) preserves common-law powers. Departmental guidance was not a statement of law. Failure to follow its planning or consultation recommendations did not itself establish unlawfulness.
4. The face-down restraints were deliberate techniques, not merely accidental results of dynamic restraint. The judge was entitled to find that they were unreasonable, having regard to the lack of training, the known behaviour pattern, the staff member’s physical limitations and the availability of safer techniques. A breach of school policy was not conclusive, but the ultimate finding of unreasonable force was sustainable.
5. The towel method did amount to enforced restriction of movement, notwithstanding the partly open door and continuing communication. However, the court had to assess each incident for lawful justification. The evidence showed that the method was used to prevent injury and to allow de-escalation while maintaining contact. It was reasonable and proportionate under section 93(1) and section 87.
6. Aggravated damages. Under Thompson v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 and Richardson v Howie [2004] EWCA Civ 1127, basic damages include injury to feelings caused by the assault and its motive or context. Aggravated damages require additional conduct causing additional injury. The witnesses’ unrealistic interpretation of old incident notes was not malicious, oppressive or otherwise egregious, and could not justify an aggravated award.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): [2026] EWCA Civ 415. Appeal allowed in part. Battery findings upheld; false-imprisonment findings and aggravated damages set aside.
• High Court of Justice, King's Bench Division: Ms Margaret Obi, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, dismissed the negligence claim, found liability in battery and false imprisonment, and awarded compensatory and aggravated damages.