Legal News

‘Failure to Remove’ claims—the decision and an update (HXA v Surrey County Council)

‘Failure to Remove’ claims—the decision and an update (HXA v Surrey County Council)
Published on: 17 February 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • ‘Failure to Remove’ claims—the decision and an update (HXA v Surrey County Council)
  • The case law to late 2020
  • HXA v Surrey County Council
  • Pending cases
  • Conclusion

Article summary

Personal Injury analysis: Paul Stagg, barrister at 1 Chancery Lane, considers the recent case of HXA v Surrey County Council which was an application made under CPR 3.4(2)(a) by the defendant to strike out the significant majority of the claimant’s claim. The claimant sought damages for psychiatric and other injuries suffered as a result of child abuse which it was alleged would have been avoided or lessened had the defendant’s social workers exercised reasonable care. The High Court decided that the Supreme Court case of N v Poole Borough Council could not be distinguished when considering the question of duty of care and the relevant claims were therefore struck out. The alleged failure by the defendant’s school staff to act on the report of abuse was not subject to the strike out application and remains to be determined by the court. This analysis also looks at the case law following the judgment in Poole, before looking at pending cases and the likely way forward to the higher courts. This article was first published by 1 Chancery Lane on 15 February 2021 and is republished with permission. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents