Woodland v Essex County Council [2013]

Woodland v Essex County Council [2013] UKSC 66 is a significant tort case in which the Supreme Court addressed the scope of a school authority's non-delegable duties of care during outsourced activities, outlining the key features of relationships that give rise to such duties.

The case arose from a tragic incident in July 2000 when the claimant, a ten-year-old pupil at Whitmore Junior School, suffered a severe hypoxic brain injury during a swimming lesson conducted as part of the national curriculum. The lesson was taught by a swimming teacher and supervised by a lifeguard, neither of whom were employees of the defendant education authority. Their services had been outsourced to a private contractor. The claimant alleged negligence on the part of these individuals and claimed the school owed her a non-delegable duty of care, making it liable for their negligence.

Initially, the High Court and the Court of Appeal struck out the claimant's allegation of a non-delegable duty of care. However, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned these decisions, allowing the appeal and remitting the case to the High Court for trial. Lord Sumption delivered the leading judgment, with Lady Hale and other justices concurring. The Court considered whether the school's duty was merely to take reasonable care when directly performing its functions or whether it extended to ensuring reasonable care by third parties to whom those functions were delegated.

The Court established five key characteristics for a non-delegable duty of care: (1) the claimant must be vulnerable and dependent on the defendant for protection; (2) there must be an antecedent relationship involving custody, charge, or care that implies a positive duty to protect; (3) the claimant must lack control over the defendant’s performance of obligations; (4) the defendant must delegate an integral function of its assumed duty; and (5) negligence must occur in performing the delegated function. The justices held it fair, just, and reasonable to impose such a duty, particularly in cases involving vulnerable individuals like children. Schools, being entrusted with the care of children by law, cannot evade liability for negligent acts arising from outsourced functions integral to their educational duties.

This ruling highlights the importance of safeguarding vulnerable parties in contexts where responsibilities are delegated. The Court clarified that schools owe a non-delegable duty only for functions they have undertaken to perform, not merely arranged. Lady Hale emphasised the fairness of this development, ensuring consistent liability regardless of whether schools directly or indirectly provide services.
Back to blog
UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

UOLLB SQE Turbocharge

Get ready for the SQE1 with high-performance SQE Study Guides developed by UOLLB and published by UOL Press to revolutionise your study method and exam strategy.

Turbocharge SQE Performance

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 essential case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding.
Speed up your revision with us now👇

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Council of Europe
Crown Prosecution Service
Baker Mckenzie 
Yale University
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University of London
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham
ESSEC Business School

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.