HXA/YXA v Surrey County Council, [2023] UKSC 52

Can You Answer This?

Practice with real exam questions

A local authority’s social services department receives multiple complaints from neighbors alleging that Ms. Peters routinely leaves a child under her care unsupervised for extended periods. Despite repeated reports from the child's school and healthcare professionals highlighting potential neglect, the assigned social worker believes that exercising statutory powers might infringe on Ms. Peters’s autonomy and privacy. Over several months, the child appears increasingly malnourished, frequently misses school, and is seen wandering the neighborhood without supervision. Local residents express concerns that the child is in immediate danger, prompting the authorities to consider if they owe a common law duty of care. Eventually, the child is hospitalized due to severe injuries that seem closely linked to ongoing neglect or potential abuse.


Which of the following factors is most likely to establish a common law duty of care for the local authority in this scenario?

Introduction

The Supreme Court's judgment in HXA/YXA v Surrey County Council [2023] UKSC 52 clarifies the legal principles governing a local authority's liability for negligence when failing to protect children from harm caused by third parties. This area of law requires careful consideration of statutory duties, common law negligence principles, and the balance between protecting vulnerable individuals and respecting individual autonomy. The case establishes important parameters for determining when a local authority owes a duty of care to children in such circumstances, highlighting the interplay between statutory powers and potential common law duties. The judgment provides guidance for local authorities and legal practitioners concerning the scope and limits of their responsibilities in child protection.

The Facts of HXA/YXA v Surrey County Council

The claimants, two sisters, alleged negligence against Surrey County Council. They argued that the council failed to exercise its statutory powers under the Children Act 1989 to protect them from neglect and abuse inflicted by their mother and her partner. The abuse, including physical violence and emotional harm, occurred while the children resided with their mother, despite numerous reports and concerns raised to social services.

Duty of Care: The Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the circumstances under which a local authority might owe a common law duty of care to children at risk. The Court affirmed that a local authority does not take on a duty of care simply because it has statutory powers to intervene in child protection matters. Rather, a duty may arise only when the local authority's actions create an assumption of responsibility towards a specific child or group of children, leading those children or their carers to rely on the authority's intervention. The Court stressed that the creation of such a duty is fact-specific, requiring close review of the relationship between the local authority and the children involved.

Distinguishing HXA/YXA from Previous Case Law

The Supreme Court distinguished HXA/YXA from previous cases like D v East Berkshire Community NHS Trust [2005] UKHL 23 and CN v Poole Borough Council [2019] UKSC 25. The Court clarified that, unlike in D v East Berkshire, where a misdiagnosis led to parental suspicion and harm to the child, the present case did not involve actions by the local authority that directly worsened the children's situation. Furthermore, the Court contrasted the situation in HXA/YXA with CN v Poole, where the vulnerability of the children and the council's knowledge of their specific needs created a closer relationship, thereby giving rise to a duty of care.

Implications for Local Authorities

The HXA/YXA judgment offers important guidance to local authorities addressing the work of child protection. It stresses the importance of thorough record-keeping, clear communication with families, and thoughtful review of the potential effects of any actions taken, or not taken, in response to concerns about child welfare. The judgment emphasizes that while statutory powers outline a route for intervention, they do not automatically create a common law duty. The existence of a duty depends on the specific facts of each case, particularly the nature of the relationship established between the local authority and the child.

The Future of Child Protection Litigation

The HXA/YXA judgment marks a significant development in the law relating to council liability for failing to prevent harm to children. The decision clarifies the circumstances in which a duty of care can arise and emphasizes the importance of a fact-sensitive approach. This ruling will influence future litigation in this field, shaping the legal arguments and strategies used by both claimants and local authorities. The decision calls for a clear understanding of the principles governing duty of care and their application in the context of child protection.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in HXA/YXA v Surrey County Council provides significant clarification of the law relating to local authority liability for failing to prevent harm to children. The decision supports the principle that a duty of care does not automatically arise from the existence of statutory powers. The Court’s analysis of the relationship between statutory duties and common law negligence principles offers guidance for local authorities and legal practitioners alike. The case reminds us of the challenges faced by local authorities in protecting vulnerable children and the importance of a legal framework that balances the rights and responsibilities of all involved. The HXA/YXA judgment represents a valuable step in the development of child protection law, shaping the future of litigation and influencing the practice of child welfare services nationwide.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of December 2024. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

Practice. Learn. Excel.

Features designed to support your job and test preparation

Question Bank

Access 100,000+ questions that adapt to your performance level and learning style.

Performance Analytics

Track your progress across topics and identify knowledge gaps with comprehensive analytics and insights.

Multi-Assessment Support

Prepare for multiple exams simultaneously, from academic tests to professional certifications.

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal