Woodland v Essex County Council [2013]
Share
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.
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.
