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.’
