## Facts

- The case involved negligence claims against Bedfordshire County Council by two groups: children alleging failure to protect them from abuse, and parents alleging negligent interference with their family lives.
- The complaints centered on the council’s social services operations, specifically their handling of child protection and care.
- Claimants asserted that the local authority owed a duty of care and breached this duty, resulting in harm.
- The statutory framework governing local authority duties in child protection underpinned the court’s analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether a common law duty of care was owed by local authorities to children or parents in the context of child protection and social services.
2. How to distinguish between policy and operational decisions in determining negligence liability.
3. Whether such public authority decisions were justiciable, or whether negligence liability would be contrary to public policy.
4. Whether application of the Caparo test supported the existence of a duty of care in these circumstances.

## Decision

- The House of Lords drew a distinction between policy decisions (typically concerning resource allocation, planning, and prioritization) and operational decisions (concerning implementation of policies).
- The court found that policy decisions were generally non-justiciable and immune from negligence claims, while operational decisions might in principle be actionable.
- It determined that statutory duties do not, by themselves, necessarily create a common law duty of care.
- Applying the Caparo test, the court held that although harm was foreseeable, proximity or public policy often precluded recognition of a duty of care in the social services context.
- The court concluded that imposing such a duty could lead to defensive practices and impair the efficient provision of social services.
- Generally, negligence claims against local authorities for social service functions were restricted, but not entirely excluded.

## Legal Principles

- The policy/operational dichotomy distinguishes non-justiciable policy matters from potentially actionable operational decisions.
- Statutory duties are relevant but not determinative in establishing a common law duty of care.
- The Caparo test (foreseeability, proximity, and whether fair, just and reasonable) governs the imposition of duty of care.
- Public policy concerns, such as potential for defensive practice and resource implications for local authorities, strongly influence the scope of negligence liability in social services.
- Judicial review, rather than negligence claims, is often viewed as the appropriate mechanism for challenging certain local authority decisions.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] clarified the limited circumstances in which local authorities may be liable in negligence for social services functions, emphasizing the distinction between policy and operational decisions and prioritizing public policy considerations over the imposition of broad duties of care in child protection contexts.


X v Bedfordshire County Council [1995] 2 AC 633 (HL)