## Facts

- From an early age, Barrett was placed under the care of Enfield London Borough Council.
- Barrett claimed that the council’s negligent handling of his care, including decisions about short-term and residential placements, caused him significant psychiatric harm.
- The allegations included failures to provide appropriate and stable placements, inadequate support, and insufficient planning for his future.

## Issues

1. Whether a local authority owes a common law duty of care to a child in its care when performing statutory child care functions.
2. Whether decisions made by the local authority regarding a child's care were policy decisions (non-justiciable) or operational decisions (potentially actionable in negligence).
3. Whether the existence of statutory duties precludes a concurrent common law duty of care.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that a local authority could be liable in negligence to a child in its care arising from negligent decisions about their upbringing.
- It was determined that the existence of statutory duties did not exclude a concurrent common law duty of care.
- The Court distinguished between policy and operational decisions, holding that day-to-day decisions about a child’s care were operational and could lead to liability in negligence.
- The decision of the Court of Appeal, which denied the existence of a duty of care, was overturned.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory duties imposed on local authorities do not in themselves preclude a concurrent common law duty of care.
- A distinction exists between policy decisions (concerning resource allocation and strategic matters) and operational decisions (relating to the implementation of policy in individual cases).
- Policy decisions are generally not justiciable, while operational decisions may form the basis for negligence claims.
- Local authorities are not immune from liability in negligence for actions carried out in the course of statutory child care functions.
- The principles established apply beyond child care, as also discussed in related case law such as Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619.

## Conclusion

Barrett v Enfield LBC clarified that local authorities can owe a common law duty of care to children in their care, even when acting under statutory obligations, and distinguished operational decisions—subject to negligence claims—from policy decisions, substantially shaping local authority liability in child protection law.


Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550