## Facts

- Natasha Armes was placed into care as a child by Nottinghamshire County Council.
- She alleged suffering physical and emotional harm by her placement parents over several years.
- Armes brought a claim against the council, asserting that it was responsible for the injuries she suffered while in placement care.
- The council denied liability, arguing it did not control the day-to-day conduct of placement parents and had complied with its legal duties via checks and assessments.
- The Court of Appeal sided with the council, ruling the duty of care was delegable and the council was not liable for the acts of placement parents.
- The Supreme Court subsequently reversed this outcome, holding that the council retained a non-delegable duty regarding the child's safety and well-being.

## Issues

1. Whether the local authority owed a non-delegable duty of care to a child placed in placement care.
2. Whether Nottinghamshire County Council could be held liable for harm caused by placement parents, despite not controlling their daily actions.
3. Whether public policy and statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 required such a non-delegable duty.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that Nottinghamshire County Council owed a non-delegable duty of care to children placed in placement care.
- It determined that the duty to protect the welfare of children could not be delegated, even where another party carried out the day-to-day care.
- The Court found that the council's statutory responsibilities and control over the arrangement established this duty.
- The earlier view that the local authority could delegate its duty was rejected in light of the specific vulnerabilities and reliance of children in care.

## Legal Principles

- A non-delegable duty arises when one party has assumed responsibility for another's welfare, particularly when the other party is vulnerable.
- The five-part test from Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association [2013] UKSC 66 is relevant in assessing non-delegable duties, including vulnerability, assumption of responsibility, and control over arrangements.
- Vicarious liability is distinct from a non-delegable duty; the latter is based on obligations that cannot be shifted even where practical care is performed by others.
- Statutory duties under the Children Act 1989 strengthen the local authority's ongoing obligation to safeguard children in its care.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court's decision in Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council significantly extended the scope of non-delegable duties in public law, holding local authorities directly responsible for ensuring the safety and welfare of children placed in placement care, thereby strengthening protections for vulnerable individuals and clarifying public body accountability.


Armes v Nottinghamshire County Council [2017] UKSC 60, [2018] AC 355