“Educational professionals owe duty of care for special educational needs advice”
Phelps suffered from dyslexia but this was not diagnosed by the local authority's educational psychologist until she was 13. She sued the psychologist and Hillingdon Council claiming the late diagnosis caused her educational and emotional harm. The authority argued they owed no duty of care for educational decisions.
Whether educational psychologists and local education authorities owe a duty of care to pupils in respect of psychological assessments and advice about special educational needs.
The House of Lords held that both the educational psychologist and the local authority could owe a duty of care. The psychologist was liable as a professional giving advice, and the authority was vicariously liable.
This case opens the door to negligence claims in educational contexts and clarifies that professional advisers in education can be liable for negligent advice. It has important implications for special educational needs provision and professional liability.
You're reading the free summary of Phelps v Hillingdon 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
Phelps v Hillingdon LBC [2001] 2 AC 619
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.