NA v Nottinghamshire County Council
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MALES
Areas of Law
- Tort Law
- Family Law
- Child Care Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
This case surrounds NA, who had a troubled childhood with periods living with her abusive mother and in foster care. She sued the local authority for negligence, claiming they failed to remove her from an abusive home and protect her from abuse in foster placements. The court assessed the claims using principles of negligence, vicarious liability, and non-delegable duty, ultimately finding no negligence, no vicarious liability, and ruling against a non-delegable duty for the local authority. Thus, the court decided in favor of the defendant local authority.
Judgment
Mr Justice Males :
Introduction
The claimant in this case, NA (now aged 37), had a very unhappy childhood. She alternated between periods of living with her mother (and sometimes her mother’s violent and abusive partner) and a variety of foster placements, followed eventually by a succession of residential children’s homes. Her unhappy childhood experiences have cast a long shadow over her life.
In this action the claimant makes three claims against the defendant local authority:
First, she says that while in her mother’s care she suffered physical and emotional abuse by her mother and her mother’s partner, a man called Paul Marsden whom she regarded as her father, and that the defendant failed in the common law duty of care which it owed her by failing either to remove her from her mother’s care at a young age or to put in place measures to protect her from the abuse which she suffered.
Second, she says that while in the foster care of Mr and Mrs A between 25 March 1985 and 27 March 1986 when she was aged 7 and 8, she suffered physical and emotional abuse by Mrs A for which the defendant is responsible in law.
Third, she says that while in the foster care of Mr and Mrs B between 23 October 1987 and 23February 1988 when she was aged ten, she suffered sexual abuse by Mr B and physical abuse by Mrs B for which again the defendant is responsible in law.
It is common ground that when providing social work services to the claimant pursuant to its statutory responsibilities, the defendant owed the claimant a common law duty of care to take reasonable steps to ensure that she was not exposed to a reasonably foreseeable risk of injury, whether to her physical or mental health. It is common ground also that the standard of care required pursuant to this duty is that of a reasonably competent social worker in the particular role and circumstances under consideration, assessed against the professional standards of the time. This is the Bolam test (Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582 ).
The first of the three claims which the claimant makes therefore requires consideration of the circumstances as they existed at the time, in the late 1970s and 1980s, both as presented to the social workers who dealt with the claimant and (if different) as those social workers ought reasonably to have ascertained her circumstances to be. It requires determination of whether, and if so when, the social workers acting in accordance with conte