Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
The need for proportionality and the ‘Covid impact’
Simon Wilkinson, Parklane PlowdenThe Covid-19 pandemic has infiltrated every aspect of our lives. Within the courts and tribunals service there has been a plethora of guidance since March 2020 which...
Local authority input into private law proceedings, part II
Mani Singh Basi, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingsLucy Logan Green, Barrister, 4 Paper BuildingThis article considers the interplay between private and public law proceedings, focusing on the law relating...
Time for change (II)
Lisa Parkinson, Family mediation trainer, co-founder and a Vice-President of the Family Mediators AssociationThe family law community needs to respond to the urgent call for change from the...
How Can I Wed Thee? – Let Me Change the Ways: the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper on ‘Weddings’ Law (2020)
Professor Chris Barton, A Vice-President of the Family Mediators Association, Academic Door Tenant, Regent Chambers, Stoke-on-TrentThis article considers the Paper's 91 Consultation Questions...
Consultation on the proposed transfer of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of costs to the Legal Aid Agency
The Ministry of Justice has launched a consultation on the proposed transfer from Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service to the Legal Aid Agency of the assessment of all civil legal aid bills of...
View all articles

NEGLIGENCE: B v Reading Borough Council; Wokingham District Council; Chief Constable Thames Valley Police [2009] EWHC 998 (QB)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:20 PM
Slug : b-v-reading-borough-council-wokingham-district-council-chief-constable-thames-valley-police-2009-ewhc-998-qb
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 24, 2009, 09:12 AM
Article ID : 89311

(Queen's Bench Division; Mackay J; 24 June 2009)

False allegations of sexual abuse against a father featured in both contact and care proceedings concerning a young child. Only after 5 years were the allegations finally rejected conclusively by the court. The final judgment in the care proceedings made significant criticisms of the social worker and police officer who had conducted the interviews of the 3-year old child. The father sought damages from the social worker and police officer, originally alleging negligence and vicarious liability on the part of the police and local authority; these proceedings took 11 years to come to trial. Eventually the negligence and vicarious liability claims were struck out, but the father was allowed to proceed with his claim for misfeasance in public office and/or conspiracy. A question arose at the hearing as to whether the father could rely upon the two judgments given in the care proceedings as evidence finally determinative of the facts stated within them, with particular reference to the comments made by the care judge about the social worker and police officer.

The care judge's central finding, which was that there had been no sexual abuse, was not at issue, but permission to rely upon the judgments in any other respect was refused: the comments made by the care judge concerning the conduct of the social worker and the police officer had not been a necessary part of the care judge's decision. The judge had not been asked to make a definitive judgment about whether the social worker and police officer had been professionally negligent and neither had been represented or been put on notice of the allegations within the care proceedings. While the interviews of the 3 year old child conducted by the social worker and the police officer had been very seriously flawed, not least because of the active participation of the mother, there had been no misfeasance or conspiracy: the essential ingredient of bad faith had not been established. Neither the social worker nor the police officer had believed that they were acting beyond their powers, nor had they at any stage been subjectively reckless, knowing that there was a serious risk that their actions would cause the father to suffer loss, but choosing to ignore that risk and to carry on. They had made a bad misjudgment, but it was sadly in the nature of risk assessment, which this process had been, in effect, that errors in both directions would be made.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from