Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2000] 3 WLR 776

• Plaintiffs had learning/physical problems that were either not investigated, or not diagnosed, or not adequately catered for by local authorities, Rs, responsible for their education (following erroneous reports from educational psychiatrists).

• This lack of care caused Plaintiffs to suffer and HL held that Rs were vicariously liable for the reports of their psychiatrists.

  • It said that people in a particular profession/exercising a particular skill (e.g. educational psychologist, as here) owe a duty of care where a person could foreseeably be harmed if due care isn’t exercised in making her report to the local authorities;

  • That duties of care don’t require contracts; that a contractual duty to one party (psychologist to R) doesn’t prevent a duty of care to another party (Plaintiffs);

  • that where a psychologist’s assessment was asked for and it was clear that Plaintiff’s school/parents would act on that advise, a prima facie duty of care arose;

  • that teachers owe a duty to take the care of a reasonable teacher in ensuring students’ needs are met;

  • Rs are vicariously liable for its teachers and psychologists. 

Lord Clyde

• He says we have to ask:

  • (1) can/should a duty exist (resolved by consideration of policy + fair, just and reasonable) and

  • (2) does a duty exist (proximity, foreseeability etc).

• Here, public interest is FOR allowing claims so as to uphold standards (not undue burden on teachers and won’t allow a flood of claims).

• On question 2, the fact that the advice was clearly going to be acted upon by Plaintiff/Plaintiff’s parents means that the duty cannot only be said to have been owed to R.