Facts
- CN and GN, two children, suffered prolonged harassment and abuse from a neighbouring family.
- Their mother repeatedly sought assistance from Poole Borough Council’s social services department.
- Despite interventions, including police and housing authority involvement, the council did not rehouse the family.
- The children experienced significant psychological harm as a result of ongoing abuse.
Issues
- Whether Poole Borough Council owed a duty of care to protect the children from harm caused by third parties.
- Under what circumstances a local authority assumes responsibility for an individual's welfare, thereby creating a duty of care.
- Whether providing services, even if negligently, automatically creates an actionable duty in negligence.
- How statutory duties relating to housing and anti-social behaviour interact with common law duties of care.
Decision
- The Supreme Court held that Poole Borough Council did not create the source of danger; the harm was caused by neighbours.
- The council had not assumed responsibility for the children’s welfare sufficient to create the requisite proximity giving rise to a duty of care.
- Merely providing services, even if done negligently, was insufficient to constitute an assumption of responsibility for negligence claims.
- The Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s finding of liability and clarified the correct approach for establishing duty of care in similar cases.
Legal Principles
- A duty of care may arise if a public authority directly creates or increases a risk of harm to an individual.
- A local authority can assume responsibility and owe a duty of care where there is a relationship of proximity and the claimant relies on the authority’s protection.
- Statutory duties (such as those relating to housing or anti-social behaviour) do not automatically translate into common law duties of care.
- Provision of services alone, even if negligent, does not in itself demonstrate an assumption of responsibility.
- Policy considerations, including avoiding defensive practices and maintaining public services’ operational effectiveness, are relevant in limiting the scope of public authority liability.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court decision in CN v Poole Borough Council clarified that social services do not automatically assume a duty of care by providing services; an actionable duty arises only if the authority creates the risk or explicitly assumes responsibility, with courts to balance this against public policy concerns when evaluating negligence claims against public bodies.
