A, B v Essex County Council: QBD 18 Dec 2002

The applicants sought damages after they had had placed with them for adoption a child who proved to be destructively hyperactive.
Held: The authority might be liable where they failed to disclose to adoptive parents known characteristics of a child. A person exercising a particular skill might owe a duty of care where its negligent performance might adversely affect others (Phelps). The local authority can be vicariously liable for any damages resulting. It was foreseeable that a child known to be violent to people and property might cause injury in the future.
The Honourable Mr Justice Buckley
Times 24-Jan-2003, [2002] EWHC 2707 (QB)
Bailii
Adoption Act 1976
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedPhelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council; Anderton v Clwyd County Council; Gower v Bromley London Borough Council; Jarvis v Hampshire County Council HL 28-Jul-2000
The plaintiffs each complained of negligent decisions in his or her education made by the defendant local authorities. In three of them the Court of Appeal had struck out the plaintiff’s claim and in only one had it been allowed to proceed.
Cited by:
Appeal fromA and Another v Essex County Council CA 17-Dec-2003
The claimant sought damages. The respondent had acted as an adoption agency but had failed to disclose all relevant information about the child.
Held: Any such duty extended only during the period where the child was with the prospective . .
CitedJD v East Berkshire Community Health NHS Trust and others HL 21-Apr-2005
Parents of children had falsely and negligently been accused of abusing their children. The children sought damages for negligence against the doctors or social workers who had made the statements supporting the actions taken. The House was asked if . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 15 April 2021; Ref: scu.178521