Barrett v Enfield LBC [1999] 3 All ER 193
Judgement for the case Barrett v Enfield LBC
Table Of Contents
Plaintiff claimed for negligence against the PA in whose care he’d been paced and whose mismanagement caused him psychological injuries by failing to provide him with appropriate adoption, mishandling an introduction to his real mother etc.
HL said that this case should proceed to trial and should NOT be struck out on account of there being no cause of action.
HL
Although X v Bedfordshire it would NOT be fair, just and reasonable (F,J & R) to impose duties of care in respect of decisions about whether to take a child into public care, but it WOULD be F, J and R once the child is in care, and the bar on a child suing its parents for a negligent upbringing does not apply to PAs.
Lord Slynn
Fears of ‘defensive practices’ caused by such a duty may be exaggerated.
Instead the duty may serve to improve the quality of the social services’ work.
RELATED CASES
For Further Study on Barrett v Enfield LBC
Aspects Of Obligations notes fully updated for recent exams in the UK. ...
Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedSimilar Cases
Related Product Samples
These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
| Aspects Of Obligations | Public Authority Liability Notes (12 pages) |
Tort Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridge. ...
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.