Jennifer Bluett and Suffolk County Council and Anglia Housing Group Ltd and The Foyer for Ipswich Ltd and Wherry Housing Association Ltd and Malcolm Frank George Markwell and Nighthawk Security Ltd and Richard Ceri Marjoram and Sarah Rache

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeLord Justice May,Lord Justice Scott Baker
Judgment Date20 December 2004
Neutral Citation[2004] EWCA Civ 1707
Docket NumberCase No: A2/2004/0501
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
Date20 December 2004

[2004] EWCA Civ 1707

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)

ON APPEAL FROM THE QUEEN's BENCH DIVISION

MASTER LESLIE

HQ02X01627

Before

The Right Honourable Lord Justice May

The Right Honourable Lord Justice Scott Baker

Case No: A2/2004/0501

Between
Jennifer Bluett
Claimant/Appellant
and
(1)suffolk County Council
Defendant/Respondent
(2)anglia Housing Group Limited
(3)the Foyer for Ipswich Limited
(4)wherry Housing Association Limited
(5)malcolm Frank George Markwell
(6)nighthawk Security Limited
(7)richard Ceri Marjoram
(8)sarah Rachel Davey
(9)joanne Claire Blowers

John Cherry QC and Ian Martignetti (instructed by John A White & Co) for the Claimant

James Dingemans QC and Navjot Atwal (instructed by Badhams Law) for the first Defendant

Lord Justice May

Lord Justice May

Introduction

1

In the early hours of 3 rd January 1998, Jennifer Bluett, then aged 16 1/2, was gravely and tragically injured. On a number of subsequent occasions she nearly died. She is permanently incapacitated. She has no recollection of the accident. She brings these proceedings by a litigation friend.

2

Jennifer suffered her truly dreadful injuries because she jumped out of the window of the third floor room in which she was living at a hostel for young people in Ipswich called The Foyer. She fell some 40 feet to the ground. She had been living at The Foyer only since 22 nd December 1997, apart from a short period over Christmas which she spent with her father. The Foyer is owned or run by one or more of the second, third and fourth defendants. It is not presently necessary to distinguish between them.

3

There was another resident at the hostel called Paul Doe. He had a girlfriend, Joanna Blowers, the ninth defendant. Joanna Blowers reckoned to have found out that Jennifer had had sexual intercourse with Paul Doe. Arising out of this, and it may be for other reasons as well, there was a prolonged invasion of The Foyer on the night of the accident. The invaders included Joanna Blowers and Richard Marjoram and Sarah Davey, the seventh and eighth defendants. Jennifer's tragic leap from her window occurred when these three defendants had broken down the door of her room. She jumped because she was in fear for her life from their attack.

4

Richard Marjoram, Sarah Davey and Joanna Blowers were later convicted at the Crown Court, two of them of inflicting grievous bodily harm and one of affray. His Honour Judge Holt said in sentencing them:

"The final incident in which she was so tragically injured was the culmination of four visits to her room which escalated in violence each time. I think for the benefit of Jenny Bluett, who was so disabled that she could not give evidence, I should say that on the evidence which I heard I had no doubt that she herself did not want violence and was always on the defensive and I have no doubt that she was telling the truth about her relationship with her ex-boyfriend."

5

The Foyer appears to have been fairly recently refurbished. There appears to be evidence that it had problems related to drink and drugs. It also had problems with vandalism, so much so that it engaged one or both of the fifth and sixth defendants to provide security services. Their employee, James Bolsover, was on guard in uniform that night.

6

Jennifer has brought these proceedings against each of the nine defendants claiming that each of them is liable to her in damages for her accident and its consequences.

7

The basis of her claim against the seventh, eighth and ninth defendants is obvious. Her claim against the other six defendants is variously based on allegations of breaches of statutory duty or negligence. This appeal only concerns her claim against the first defendants, Suffolk County Council.

The proceedings

8

Each of the first to sixth defendants applied to strike out Jennifer's claim against them under rule 3.4 of the CPR or to have it summarily dismissed under rule 24.2. Master Leslie heard the applications. Those of the first defendants and the second, third and fourth defendants succeeded. The fifth and sixth defendants' applications failed.

9

Jennifer and the fifth and sixth defendants each appealed against Master Leslie's orders. When Cresswell J gave permission for Jennifer's appeal, he wondered whether Master Leslie might not have wrongly conducted a mini-trial. Poole J heard the appeal. He dismissed Jennifer's appeal against the first defendants. He allowed her appeal against the second, third and fourth defendants. He dismissed the fifth and sixth defendants' appeals. So at that stage, all Jennifer's claims remained intact except that against the first defendants, the County Council.

10

All parties who had lost before Poole J—that is Jennifer against the first defendants, and the second to sixth defendants against Jennifer—applied to this court for permission to bring a second appeal. Rix LJ refused the applications of the second to sixth defendants on paper. He inventively granted Jennifer's application conditionally. The condition was that the applications of the second to sixth defendants were not renewed or were refused on a renewed oral hearing, so that there would in any event be a trial involving those defendants. The condition is now fulfilled. So Jennifer has unconditional permission to bring this second appeal.

Facts

11

Jennifer was born on 25 th May 1981. Problems arose between her and her parents, particularly her mother, from about October 1993. The local authority was involved and a Voluntary Accommodation Agreement was made on 27 th July 1994. This allowed Suffolk County Council to provide Jennifer with accommodation while her parents retained parental responsibility. At a meeting on 29 th July 1994, a long term objective of returning Jennifer to her family was identified, but it was suggested that she should have a foster care placement to provide a break for the family and so that she might learn boundaries in another family environment. There followed periods of short term fostering and a number of attempts to return Jennifer to her family. In July 1995, a long term fostering arrangement was made with Mr and Mrs Walsh. Although Jennifer's school record remained turbulent, the foster relationship seems to have been successful until about September 1997. It came to an end on 22 nd September 1997, by which time the relationship between Jennifer and her foster family had broken down as Jennifer asserted her wish for greater freedom following her 16 th birthday. Arrangements were made for Jennifer to be housed temporarily with the mother of a school friend. Jennifer was staying on at a sixth form college for a one year business studies course which she hoped to extend.

12

The Suffolk County Council social worker who had been particularly concerned with Jennifer was Peter Lorford-Page. Suffolk County Council's financial support and responsibility for Jennifer's foster care had ceased. On 13 th October 1997, the County Council's Leaving Care Service got in touch with her. At a meeting in November 1997, it was recorded that Mr Page's role as Jennifer's social worker would be reduced. Jennifer then spent a short time at a hostel, from which she was removed because other residents were misbehaving. She returned home to her father for a short period, following which she moved to The Foyer in Ipswich on 22 nd December 1997.

13

There are two statements by Mr Page before the court, and also a letter written by him dated 22 nd February 2002 correcting material in what is referred to as an "additional draft statement" which, he said, did not reflect a truly accurate picture. His statement dated 5 th February 2000 includes the following:

"At that time [after staying with the school friends and mother], the NCH Leaving Care Service, which acts as agent for the Social Services Department, offered a shared house, rented for the purpose, by that organisation. … there was one other girl, not previously known to Jenny. The fact that the other girl had frequent contact with drink and drugs was not known to Jenny, or to Social Services, at that time. Shortly after moving in Jenny was given a "spiked" drink at a party in the house. This affected her greatly and she became very distressed. Immediately after I became aware of the position, I removed her and requested for her to return home. This she did, staying until moving to The Foyer hostel in Ipswich, on or about 22 nd December 1997. This last four-month period of the year was an unhappy stage of her life.

By this time also, Jenny found that Newmarket Upper School could not provide her with the "A" levels she wanted. She had it in mind to concentrate on business studies. She requested assistance to find another college in the County together with accommodation nearby. I had already assisted another girl, who was also attending college, to gain a place at the newly opened "Foyer" in Ipswich and this girl spoke highly of it. Residents had their own well set up rooms in "flats". Each separate flat consisted of three or four bedrooms with shared bathroom, w.c., kitchen and dining area. I do not know the total number of rooms, but the building is a converted warehouse and is large. There was a licence agreement for residents under the age of 18. In Jenny's case, as there was not a care order, nor was she any longer accommodated by the Authority, I arranged in mid-December 1997, for Jenny and her father to check out the accommodation in advance, which they did. They were both happy with the facilities, which included social activities and support with careers and gaining employment. I provided a reference for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • HXA v Surrey County Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • 31 August 2022
    ...whether or not there has been an assumption of responsibility or that the claim is bound to fail: Bluett v Suffolk County Council [2004] EWCA Civ 1707. (3) The defendants' submissions on 79 On behalf of the respondent local authorities, Lord Faulks QC and Mr Paul Stagg put forward the foll......
1 books & journal articles
  • Comment: NATURE AND LIABILITY SHIELD OF LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2007, December 2007
    • 1 December 2007
    ...62 MLR 133. 41 [2001] QB 1174. See also Customs & Excise Commissioners v Barclays Bank, supra n 38; Bluett v Suffolk County Council[2004] EWCA Civ 1707; and Yazhou Travel Investment v Bateson[2004] 1 HKLRD 969. 42 See J Whittaker, “Professional LLPs: Liability In Negligence After Merrett v ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT