## Facts

- The claimants, two sisters, alleged that Surrey County Council was negligent in failing to use its statutory powers under the Children Act 1989 to protect them from neglect and abuse by their mother and her partner.
- Physical violence and emotional harm occurred while the children lived with their mother, despite multiple reports and concerns raised with social services.
- The claim centered on the council's alleged inaction in response to known risks to the children's safety and wellbeing.

## Issues

1. Whether a local authority can be liable in negligence for failing to exercise its statutory child protection powers to prevent harm caused by third parties.
2. Whether the existence of statutory powers under the Children Act 1989 automatically creates a common law duty of care.
3. Under what circumstances a local authority assumes responsibility for a child's welfare, giving rise to a duty of care.
4. How the relationship between previous case law, statutory duties, and common law negligence informs the duty of care in child protection contexts.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court held that the mere possession of statutory powers does not, by itself, impose a common law duty of care upon local authorities.
- A duty of care arises only when the local authority assumes responsibility for the child, leading the child or their carer to rely on the authority’s intervention.
- The presence or absence of such a duty depends on the facts, especially the nature of the relationship formed between the local authority and the affected child.
- The Court distinguished this case from prior authorities, holding that no additional harm was caused by actions of the local authority itself.
- The Court provided guidance that careful record-keeping and communication are important but do not substitute for the factual analysis required to establish a duty of care.

## Legal Principles

- The existence of statutory powers enabling intervention in child protection does not, in itself, create a common law duty of care.
- A duty of care may arise where the local authority's actions create an assumption of responsibility, resulting in reliance by the child or their carers.
- The determination of a duty of care is fact-specific and requires close examination of the relationship between the authority and the individuals affected.
- The judgment reaffirms distinctions from previous cases, emphasizing that the authority must do more than be aware of harm or have power to intervene to incur liability.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that local authorities are not ordinarily liable in negligence for failing to prevent harm to children by third parties, unless they have assumed responsibility and induced reliance. Statutory powers alone do not automatically establish a duty of care. This judgment provides guidance for future cases on the boundaries of local authority liability in the context of child protection.


HXA and YXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52