What is the ratio in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales?

The ratio is that police owe no duty of care to respond adequately to emergency calls, even where the caller is in immediate danger of violence.

What did the court decide in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales?

The Supreme Court decided that no duty of care was owed to the deceased caller and the negligence claim against the police failed.

Why is Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales important for tort law?

It represents the most recent Supreme Court confirmation of restrictive police liability, showing continued judicial reluctance to impose negligence duties on operational police decisions.

What is the ratio in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales?

The ratio is that police owe no duty of care to respond adequately to emergency calls, even where the caller is in immediate danger of violence.

What did the court decide in Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales?

The Supreme Court decided that no duty of care was owed to the deceased caller and the negligence claim against the police failed.

Why is Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales important for tort law?

It represents the most recent Supreme Court confirmation of restrictive police liability, showing continued judicial reluctance to impose negligence duties on operational police decisions.

Tort1 min read

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales

[2015] UKSC 2Supreme Court2015

Cite this case in OSCOLA →All Tort cases →

“Police owe no duty to respond adequately to emergency calls from endangered individuals.”

Facts

Joanna Michael made a 999 call reporting domestic violence and requesting immediate police assistance. The call handler failed to treat it as an emergency. Michael was murdered by her ex-partner before police arrived.

Issues

Whether police owed a duty of care to respond adequately to a 999 call from someone in immediate danger of violence.

Held

The Supreme Court held that no duty of care was owed. The claim against the police failed.

Significance

This case represents the most recent Supreme Court confirmation of the restrictive approach to police liability in tort. It demonstrates the continued reluctance to impose negligence duties on police operational decisions.

Read the full brief — free

You're reading the free summary of Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.

Create free account Already have one? Sign in

No card required. Free forever.

OSCOLA Citation

Michael v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2015] UKSC 2, [2015] AC 1732

TortNegligenceDuty of CarePolice LiabilityEmergency ServicesHuman Rights

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

LLBGDLSQE1

More Tort cases

Jaqueline Casey & Ors v Environment Agency

[2026] EWHC 178 (KB)

Lepani Secake & Ors v Shared Services Connected Ltd

[2026] EWHC 1022 (KB)

Salford City Council v Fortis Developments Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 702

Truter v Secretary of State for Justice

[2026] EWHC KB 825

CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust

[2026] UKSC 5

Bromcom Computers Plc v Arbor Education Partners Ltd & Ors

[2026] EWHC KB 379

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.