Public Authos/Omissions?

Question 1

HXA v Surrey CC?

Answer 1

C abused by parents.
UKSC:
Stat duties don’t = DofC;
Assumption only found if failure of service; and
No assumption just bc D investigated case.

Question 2

Stovin v Wise facts?

Answer 2

C in car crash at junction where visibility obstructed due to dangerous bank.
D local council -> identified dangerous bank but did nothing.

Question 3

Stovin v Wise judgement?

Answer 3

D had power to remove bank but no absolute duty to do so.
Too burdensome
Road users insured

Question 4

Hoffmann on why omissions different in Stovin v Wise?

Answer 4

Not required to be good Samaritans
Economic - allocation efficiency
Political - freedom
Moral - why pick on me?

Question 5

X v Bedfordshire?

Answer 5

D local authority that failed to protect C from child abuse.
HofL struck out claims:
No DofC owed on policy grounds – lots of bodies involved in making decisions and very costly.

Question 6

Phelps v Hillingdon LBC?

Answer 6

Education authority failed to diagnose C’s learning disabilities so not given adequate support.
C left school w/ reading ability of 8-year-old.
HofL – reliance reasonable bc second opinion costs £.

Question 7

Clyde in Phelps v Hillingdon LBC

Answer 7

Public policy not ground for immunity.

Floodgates argument illogical -> limited by Bolam.

Question 8

USC in Khan v Meadows?

Answer 8

No duty-nexus for unrelated risks

Question 9

Burrows in Khan v Meadows?

Answer 9

Concurring – C approached D to discover if she carried gene -> autism outside scope of D’s duty.

Question 10

Sales and Hodge in Khan v Meadows?

Answer 10

Majority
Think about DofC in relation to a particular type of harm caused

Question 11

Policy considerations that negated duty in Hill v South Yorkshire Police

Answer 11

HofL
Wasteful diversion of public funds;
Would give courts too much scope to Q police decisions;
Could lead police to act in detrimentally defensive ways.

Question 12

Reeves v Cmmr of Met Police?

Answer 12

Police liable for C’s suicide whilst imprisoned – but they were aware of risk

Question 13

Orange v CC West Yorkshire

Answer 13

Police not liable for C’s suicide in custody – but police didn’t know C suicidal.

But court recognised DofC usually owed when police aware of suicide risk

Question 14

Robinson v South Yorks Police?

Answer 14

C elderly pedestrian injured whilst two officers tried to arrest suspect.
UKSC – police owe DofC to bystanders in certain situations.
Police’s public functions don’t confer blanket immunity.

Question 15

UKSC, Michael v South Wales Police?

Answer 15

Where police given credible info re identity/location of someone who posed immediate threat, they’re under no duty to prevent it.

Question 16

Majority, Michaels?

Answer 16

Hill was right -> consider costs/risk of defensive policing.
Duty only if special relationship or AoR.
No need for com law to ‘march in step’ with HR.
No duty to guard against risk posed by TP, unless representation and reliance.

Question 17

Lady Hale, Michael?

Answer 17

Dissenting
Hill distinguishable
Public expect protection and no other alternatives
Liability can lead to greater diligence