Supreme Court to consider extent of 'non-delegable' duty owed by councils

The Supreme Court is to examine the extent to which local authorities have a non-delegable duty of care when outsourcing services, after permission was given for an appeal in a case involving an education authority.

The claimant in Woodland v Essex County Council suffered brain damage in an accident during a school swimming lesson in 2000 when she was ten years old.

The local authority had responsibility for the school, but engaged an independent contractor to take the swimming lessons. The contractor employed the lifeguard and the swimming teacher who ran the lesson.

The claimant sued the contractor, the lifeguard and Essex, claiming that the accident happened because of inadequate supervision by the teacher and the lifeguard.

The claim against Essex was that it had failed in its duty to ensure the contractor was reasonably competent, but also that it was liable for any negligence because the duty it owed the claimant was non-delegable.

In the High Court Mr Justice Langstaff struck out the part of the claim that alleged the duty owed was non-delegable.

The Court of Appeal in Woodland v Essex County Council [2012] EWCA Civ 239 decided by a majority that this was right, but it was agreed that there might be circumstances where such a duty could be owed by a local authority.

Laws LJ issued a dissenting judgment that would have held the duty to be non-delegable on the facts.

Catherine Leech, a Partner and specialist in catastrophic injury at Manchester law firm Pannone, said: “The issue here is whether or not the school had a non-delegable duty of care to its pupil. It is our case that duty should be non-delegable, but there is no case law on the point in England and Wales at present and this is why the Supreme Court needs to address the matter.

“This child went to a swimming lesson which was part of the national curriculum during school time. The school used sub contractors to teach swimming. Our client’s family believe the school is responsible for any failings of their sub-contractors in the course of the swimming lesson. The pupil and her family have had their lives irrevocably changed as a result of this tragic accident.”

See also: A new battle ground? Steven Ford QC on the Woodland case.