header-logo header-logo

26 January 2022
Issue: 7964 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Family
printer mail-detail

Article 3 child neglect claim struck out

The High Court has dismissed a ‘failure to remove’ claim against two local authorities, in a case involving the application of the Human Right Act 1998 to local authorities exercising statutory child protection functions

In AB v Worcestershire County Council & Anor [2022] EWHC 115 (QB), the claimant relied on a series of referrals to Birmingham City Council and Worcestershire County Council between 2005 and 2011. The referrals were sporadic and included: mother pushing, bumping heads, scratching his arm and neck with fingernail, being dragged upstairs and squalid living conditions, which were unsubstantiated.

Dismissing the claim, Margaret Obi, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, held a child has no Art 6 right to seek a care order, or have one made in respect of their care. She held there was no interference with AB’s rights, insufficient evidence that the various incidents reached the threshold required to engage Art 3 and, as AB was never in the care or control of either council, no duties to investigate arose.

Sarah Erwin-Jones, partner at Browne Jacobson, who represented Worcestershire County Council, said: ‘We hope that this judgment will limit Art 3 claims where neglect only is alleged, and also narrow the issues in claims alleging different types of abuse in the family home. Following the Supreme Court decision in Poole Borough Council v CN & GN [2019] UKSC 25 and other subsequent cases, it is now established law that the mere fact that various steps are taken by local authorities in the discharge of its child protection functions is not enough to give rise to an assumption of responsibility.

‘Consequently, claimants have struggled to prove their “failure to remove” type claims against local authorities and we have seen an increased emphasis on potential claims under the Human Rights Act 1998. In addition, claimant solicitors are bringing novel claims to circumvent their difficulties.’  

Issue: 7964 / Categories: Legal News , Profession , Family
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Wedlake Bell—Rebecca Christie

Firm welcomes partner with specialist expertise in family and art law

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Birketts—Álvaro Aznar

Dual-qualified partner joins international private client team

NEWS
Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

back-to-top-scroll