“Local authorities can owe duty of care for child welfare decisions”
Barrett was taken into care by Enfield Council as a child and remained in care until age 18. He sued the council claiming their negligent decisions about his care and placement caused him psychiatric harm and affected his life prospects. The council argued they owed no duty of care for child protection decisions.
Whether a local authority owes a duty of care to a child in its care for decisions made about that child's welfare and placement.
The House of Lords held that a local authority could owe a duty of care to children in its care, rejecting the council's claim to blanket immunity. The case was remitted for trial on the facts.
This case marks a significant shift from X v Bedfordshire, allowing negligence claims against local authorities for child care decisions. It has major implications for public authority liability and child protection law.
You're reading the free summary of Barrett v Enfield LBC. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Barrett v Enfield LBC [2001] 2 AC 550
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.