## Facts

- The claim arose after the Trent Strategic Health Authority ordered the closure of a nursing home following an investigation.
- The closure led to significant financial and reputational losses for the claimants, the nursing home operators.
- The claimants argued that the regulator owed them a duty of care when issuing the closure order, due to the harm suffered.
- The regulator acted pursuant to its powers to protect public health and safety.

## Issues

1. Whether a regulatory body owes a duty of care in negligence to individuals affected by its exercise of statutory powers, specifically regarding closure orders.
2. Whether the issuance of a closure order by a regulator can give rise to liability in negligence.
3. Whether statutory immunity and public policy considerations shield a regulator from liability for consequences of actions taken in good faith.
4. Whether proportionality and fair consideration are required in regulatory decisions that adversely affect private parties.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that the primary duty of a regulator is to protect public interests, not individual operators.
- The relationship between regulator and nursing home did not establish sufficient proximity under the Caparo test for a duty of care.
- Imposing liability would conflict with the regulator’s statutory obligations and public policy considerations.
- The Trent Strategic Health Authority was entitled to statutory immunity, as there was no evidence of bad faith or improper conduct in its decision to issue the closure order.
- The court recognized the importance of proportionality, but emphasized the regulator must have discretion to act decisively for public safety.

## Legal Principles

- Regulatory bodies operate under statutory powers primarily for the benefit of the public.
- The Caparo test requires foreseeability of harm, proximity, and that it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty; here, the proximity and policy limbs were not satisfied.
- Statutory immunity protects regulators from negligence claims, provided actions are in good faith and within powers.
- Public policy favors protecting regulators from liability to ensure they can act without fear of litigation.
- Proportionality is relevant but does not override the statutory focus on public safety.
- Regulators must act fairly and reasonably, but statutory immunity limits individual recourse to claims of bad faith or ultra vires actions.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords clarified that regulators are not liable in negligence to those affected by actions taken in good faith under statutory powers; duty of care is owed to the public at large, not to individual operators, and statutory immunity protects regulators unless bad faith is shown.


Jain v Trent Strategic Health Authority [2009] UKHL 4 [2009] 1 AC 853