Tort

Negligence - whether educational psychologists and teachers owe duties of care to pupils - local education authorities vicariously liable for breaches

Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; G v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council: HL (Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Clyde, Lord Hutton and Lord Millett): 27 July 2000

The claimant in the first case claimed that the local education authority was vicariously liable to her for the breach of duty of care of an educational psychologist who had failed to diagnose her dyslexia, with consequent damage.

The judge gave her judgment, but the Court of Appeal [1999] 1 WLR 500 allowed the authority's appeal.

The applicant in the second case alleged that her severe speech and language problems had not been investigated by the respondent authority properly or at all, so that she had developed psychological problems.She sought pre-action discovery under s.33(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 and RSC, Order 24, regulation 7A, which the master granted and the judge upheld.

The Court of Appeal, however, allowed the authority's appeal.

The claimant in the third case suffered from muscular dystrophy and alleged that the local education authority had failed to provide a suitable education for him, resulting in damage.

The Court of Appeal, (see The Times, 28 October 1999) allowed an appeal by the claimant from the judge, who had allowed the authority's appeal from the master's dismissal of the authority's summons for the claimant's statement of claim to be struck out.

The claimant in the fourth case, with severe learning difficulties, alleged negligence and breach of duty by an educational psychologist, for whom he alleged the local education authority was vicariously liable, and by the authority itself in respect of failure to provide him with competent advice.

The Court of Appeal [2000] ELR 36 allowed the authority's appeal from the judge, who had declined to strike out the claimant's statement of claim.

The claimants in the first, second and fourth cases and the authority in the third case appealed.

Roger Ter Haar QC and John Greenbourne (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby) for the claimant in the first case; Edward Faulks QC and Andrew Warnock (instructed by Vizard Oldham) for the authority; Roger Ter Haar QC and Nicholas Bowen (instructed by Teacher Stern Selby) for the applicant in the second case; Edward Faulks QC and Andrew Warnock (instructed by Vizard Oldham for Berrymans Lace Mawer, Liverpool) for the authority; Edward Faulks QC and Susan Rodway (instructed by AE Wyeth & Co, Dartford) for the authority in the third case; John Friel and Deborah Hay (instructed by AE Smith & Co, Stroud) for the claimant in the third case; Roger Ter Haar QC and Nicholas Bowen (instructed by Talbot Walker, Andover) for the claimant in the fourth case; Tim Kerr and Karen Steyn (instructed by Chief Executive, Hampshire County Council, Winchester) for the authority in the fourth case.

Held, allowing the appeals in the first, second and fourth cases and dismissing the appeal in the third case, that a person exercising a skill or profession might owe a duty of care to those who might be injured if due skill and care were not exercised, and a local education authority might be liable for a breach of that duty; that an educational psychologist or psychiatrist, a teacher or an education officer might be such a person; and that a failure to mitigate the adverse consequences of a congenital defect such as dyslexia could constitute `personal injuries to a person' within s.33(2) of the 1981 Act.

(WLR)