Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC ...

Facts

• The claimant’s ex-partner assaulted her current partner at her residence and threatened to return to assault her.
• The claimant made an emergency call to the police, requiring an immediate response.
• Due to an accidental error, the urgency of the call was downgraded, which caused a significant delay in police response.
• As a result of this delay, the claimant was killed by her ex-partner.
• The central issue was whether the police’s failure to respond promptly constituted a breach of duty of care owed to the claimant.

Issues

1. Whether the police owed a private law duty of care to the claimant in responding to the emergency call.
2. Whether any exception to the general rule against liability for omissions by public authorities applied in this case.
3. Whether it was fair, just, and reasonable, having regard to public policy, to impose liability on the police.
4. Whether the actions of the police created an assumption of responsibility towards the claimant.

Decision

• The Supreme Court held that the police did not owe a private law duty of care to the claimant for the failure to respond promptly.
• The court found none of the exceptions to the general “omissions rule”—such as assumption of responsibility, creation of danger, or control over a third party—were established on the facts.
• An assurance to pass on the call did not amount to a guarantee of response time and did not create an assumption of responsibility.
• The preservation of public order is a general public duty and does not automatically create a private law duty towards individuals.
• The court rejected imposing liability based merely on public policy or on the public function of the police.
• The dissenting opinion argued that the police should have been found to owe a duty due to their specific knowledge and their role in protecting individuals.

Legal Principles

• There is no single universal test for duty of care; an incremental, case-by-case approach is endorsed as per Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
• At common law, public authorities are generally not liable for omissions in preventing harm caused by third parties.
• Exceptions exist where the defendant creates a danger, exercises control over the third party, or assumes responsibility to the claimant.
• The existence of a public protection function does not automatically give rise to a duty of care in private law.
• Public policy concerns should not outweigh consistent application of general negligence principles.
• Assumption of responsibility requires specific assurance or reliance, not present in this case.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court clarified that, absent a recognized exception, the police do not owe a private law duty of care in negligence to individual victims for failures in responding to emergencies, upholding the general rule against liability for omissions by public authorities.