## 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

1. Whether Poole Borough Council owed a duty of care to protect the children from harm caused by third parties.
2. Under what circumstances a local authority assumes responsibility for an individual's welfare, thereby creating a duty of care.
3. Whether providing services, even if negligently, automatically creates an actionable duty in negligence.
4. 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.


CN v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25