Queen’s Bench Division

Published December 27, 2007

Pierce v Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council

Before Mr Justice Eady

Judgment December 13, 2007

A social services department which returned a child to the care of his parents without making a proper assessment fell short of the standard of practice to be expected of a reasonably competent local authority and was negligent.

Mr Justice Eady so held in the Queen’s Bench Division when allowing the claim of Jake Pierce in negligence against the defendant, Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council, alleging breach of duty on the basis of failure to take competent steps to protect him during his childhood, and making an award for general damages of £25,000.

Miss Elizabeth-Anne Gumbel, QC, for Mr Pierce; Miss Catherine Foster for the council.

MR JUSTICE EADY said that it had been stated in the joint psychiatric report that the claimant was a very disturbed man who had serious mental health problems throughout his life and that the main diagnosis in adult-hood was emotionally unstable personality disorder.

It was agreed that he had severe psychological problems in childhood and required special schooling throughout because of severe behavioural problems that were pervasive and caused by problems at home and at school. It was clear that his circumstances were known to the social services department of the council shortly after his birth and that he was removed from his family and placed in foster care.

It was then alleged that he was returned to the care of his mother and father without any proper assessment or investigation to justify that course. Moreover, thereafter it was said that there was inadequate follow-up and monitoring.

He finally left the home environment when he was nearly 15 years old, by which time he had suffered, on his own case, severe neglect and emotional and physical abuse from his parents. He also suffered, later, sexual and physical abuse while living on the streets.

It was obvious that the council owed a duty of care from the date when he was removed from his family and placed in foster care, and there was no countervailing reason why the imposition of such a duty would be other than fair, just and reasonable.

The standard of care to be expected of the council’s staff and, in particular, its social workers, was that of a competent department judged according to the prevailing professional climate at the time.

The duty of care was breached in that no reasonable social work department would have returned him to parental care in the circumstances.

Solicitors: Bolt Burdon Kemp, Islington; Halliwells, Sheffield.

Times Recommends

• UK legal industry faces loss of 10,000 lawyers
• Curious case of chocolate bunny trademark
• Divorce settlement granted after 22 years