Phelps v London Borough of Hillingdon
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 23 September 1997 |
| Date | 23 September 1997 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
Queen's Bench Division
Before Mr Justice Garland
Duty of care - educational psychologist - duty owed to child
An educational psychologist owed a duty of care, not only to the local authority employing her, but also to the child being assessed, through her parents, on the basis that they would act upon her findings, recommendations and advice.
Accordingly, where the psychologist's failure to diagnose dyslexia amounted to a failure to exercise the degree and skill expected of an ordinarily competent member of the profession, the local authority was vicariously liable for that negligence.
Mr Justice Garland so held in the Queen's Bench Division when allowing a claim for damages by the plaintiff, Pamela Helen Phelps, against the defendants, Hillingdon London Borough Council for their alleged negligence at common law in failing to identify her as having a special learning difficulty or dyslexia and failing to take appropriate remedial steps.
Miss Cherie Booth, QC and Mr John Greenbourne for the plaintiff; Mr Edward Faulks, QC and Mr Andrew Warnock for the council.
MR JUSTICE GARLAND said that the plaintiff, who had a long history of poor performance at various schools, was referred aged 12 in 1985 by the school she was then attending to Miss Diana Melling, an educational psychologist employed by the defendants.
Miss Melling reported that, although the plaintiff's verbal skills were below average, she had no specific weaknesses, that she did not need to be in a special school and that there was an emotional basis to her difficulties.
Over the next three years the plaintiff made little or no progress despite remedial teaching provided by the school and she left unable to write down a telephone number correctly or record a simple message. At no time was there any diagnosis of a specific learning difficulty despite the fact that dyslexia was already a well recognised condition.
Further assessments between 1990 and 1996 found her to be severely dyslexic and it was accepted that, from the nature of her disability, she would have been dyslexic at the age of 12.
His Lordship said that X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County CouncilELR ([1995] 2 AC 633) had established that local authorities could be vicariously liable for breaches of the common law duty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carty v Croydon London Borough Council
...for breach of statutory duty can lie in this case even if it can be shown that there has been such a breach. It was held in Phelps v Hillingdon Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, 652F-H that the duties cast on local authorities in relation to special educational needs were intended to benefit......
-
Naughton v Dummond
...between 1978 and 1983. He attained his majority in 1985. In 1997, the English High Court in Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council 96 LGR 1, awarded damages against a local education authority on the basis that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of an educational psychologist......
-
Wallace v Creevey
...between 1978 and 1983. He attained his majority in 1985. In 1997, the English High Court in Phelps v. Hillingdon London Borough Council 96 LGR 1, awarded damages against a local education authority on the basis that it was vicariously liable for the negligence of an educational psychologist......
-
Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council
...without quotation to the speeches of Lord Slynn of Hadley in Barratt v Enfield LBC [1993] 3 WLR 79 and of Lord Slynn and Lord Clyde in Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2000] 3 WLR 776 which, like the Bedfordshire case, were both cases concerning common law duties alleged to arise in relation to th......
-
Public Trusts
...which the powerswere conferred betray that trust and so miscond uct themselves.’ Although it was a166 Magill vPor ter [2001] UKHL 67; (1997) 96 LGR 157 (DC); [2002] 2 AC 357(CA), 447 (HL) 464[19(2)] per Lord Bingham, by implication in citing Att Gen vBelfast (1855) n 66 ab ove; 488 [84]per ......