Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 AC 619

Facts

• The case concerned the duty of care owed by local education authorities (LEAs) to pupils with special educational needs.
• The claimant alleged that the LEA, through educational psychologists and other professionals, failed to properly assess and address their learning difficulties.
• Inadequate assessments and interventions by the LEA's employees resulted in the failure to identify and support the claimant’s dyslexia.
• The claimant experienced foreseeable educational and emotional harm as a result.
• The statutory framework, including the Education Act 1996 (sections 323 and 324), set out the legal context for LEAs’ duties in special needs assessments.

Issues

1. Whether LEAs owe a duty of care to pupils in the provision of educational psychology services and special educational needs assessments.
2. Whether LEAs are vicariously liable for the negligent actions of professionals they employ in this context.
3. What standard of care applies in assessing and addressing pupils’ special educational needs.
4. Whether the failure to identify and intervene in cases of learning difficulty, such as dyslexia, constitutes a breach causing foreseeable harm.
5. How statutory obligations interact with common law negligence in the context of special educational needs provision.

Decision

• The House of Lords held that LEAs owe a duty of care to pupils regarding educational psychology services and special educational needs assessments.
• LEAs can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees if their actions cause foreseeable harm to pupils.
• A breach is established where the standard of care falls below that which would be expected of a reasonably competent professional.
• The failure to identify and address the claimant’s special educational needs was considered a breach with foreseeable consequential harm.
• The Court clarified that statutory duties under the Education Act 1996 do not exclude common law claims in negligence for foreseeable harm.

Legal Principles

• LEAs are under a duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in educational psychology assessments and the provision for special educational needs.
• Liability is anchored in whether the actions of employed professionals meet the standard expected of a reasonably competent practitioner in their field.
• The duty of care arises out of both statutory and common law obligations, with statutory breaches actionable if they result in foreseeable harm.
• Vicarious liability attaches where harm results from negligent acts or omissions of LEA employees acting within the scope of their employment.
• The scope of the duty is focused on the assessment process and formulation of individual educational plans, not on guaranteeing outcomes.

Conclusion

Phelps v Hillingdon LBC clarified that local education authorities owe a duty of care in special educational needs assessments and may be held vicariously liable for professionals' negligence, establishing that statutory duties concerning educational provision co-exist with common law liability in negligence when foreseeable harm results from failure to competently identify and address learning difficulties.