Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550

Facts

  • From an early age, Barrett was placed under the care of Enfield London Borough Council.
  • Barrett claimed that the council’s negligent handling of his care, including decisions about short-term and residential placements, caused him significant psychiatric harm.
  • The allegations included failures to provide appropriate and stable placements, inadequate support, and insufficient planning for his future.

Issues

  1. Whether a local authority owes a common law duty of care to a child in its care when performing statutory child care functions.
  2. Whether decisions made by the local authority regarding a child's care were policy decisions (non-justiciable) or operational decisions (potentially actionable in negligence).
  3. Whether the existence of statutory duties precludes a concurrent common law duty of care.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that a local authority could be liable in negligence to a child in its care arising from negligent decisions about their upbringing.
  • It was determined that the existence of statutory duties did not exclude a concurrent common law duty of care.
  • The Court distinguished between policy and operational decisions, holding that day-to-day decisions about a child’s care were operational and could lead to liability in negligence.
  • The decision of the Court of Appeal, which denied the existence of a duty of care, was overturned.

Legal Principles

  • Statutory duties imposed on local authorities do not in themselves preclude a concurrent common law duty of care.
  • A distinction exists between policy decisions (concerning resource allocation and strategic matters) and operational decisions (relating to the implementation of policy in individual cases).
  • Policy decisions are generally not justiciable, while operational decisions may form the basis for negligence claims.
  • Local authorities are not immune from liability in negligence for actions carried out in the course of statutory child care functions.
  • The principles established apply beyond child care, as also discussed in related case law such as Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619.

Conclusion

Barrett v Enfield LBC clarified that local authorities can owe a common law duty of care to children in their care, even when acting under statutory obligations, and distinguished operational decisions—subject to negligence claims—from policy decisions, substantially shaping local authority liability in child protection law.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal