Woodland v Essex CC [2013] UKSC 66

Facts

  • Amy Woodland, a pupil, suffered serious injuries during a swimming lesson organized by her school.
  • The lesson took place at a local swimming pool managed by a third-party contractor.
  • Woodland claimed against Essex County Council, the local education authority, for failure to ensure her safety during the activity.
  • The central issue was whether the school and the Council remained liable for her injuries when the activity was conducted by an independent contractor.

Issues

  1. Whether schools owe a non-delegable duty of care to pupils in respect of activities carried out by third parties or contractors.
  2. If such a duty exists, what criteria determine its application in the context of off-site or externally managed activities.
  3. Whether Essex County Council was liable for the injuries sustained by Woodland during the swimming lesson, despite having delegated the activity.

Decision

  • The Supreme Court held that Essex County Council owed a non-delegable duty of care to Woodland.
  • The Court identified five criteria relevant to establishing the existence of such a duty in a school context: the vulnerability of the claimant, the assumption of responsibility by the school, control over the environment, delegation of essential functions, and the nature of the activity as central to the school's responsibilities.
  • The swimming lesson was deemed an essential curricular activity, and the school had assumed responsibility for pupil safety.
  • Delegation to a third-party contractor did not absolve the school of its duty to ensure reasonable care was taken.

Legal Principles

  • A non-delegable duty of care is an obligation that cannot be discharged by assigning performance to another party.
  • Institutions supervising vulnerable individuals (such as children in schools) may owe such non-delegable duties, particularly regarding essential activities under their responsibility.
  • The Court applied and distinguished case law including Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd [2001] UKHL 22 and Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550, clarifying the extension of duties to situations involving third-party contractors.
  • The presence of a non-delegable duty requires vulnerability, assumption of responsibility, control, delegation of essential functions, and the essential nature of the activity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision confirmed that schools owe a non-delegable duty of care to pupils during essential activities, such as curricular swimming lessons, even if those are conducted by third-party contractors, thereby clarifying the scope of institutional liability and the continuing obligation to ensure pupil safety.

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.
No resources available.

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 May 2025. 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.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

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