The House of Lords has recently emphasised that a duty of care in tort will only be imposed when it is fair just and reasonable.
The case of Mitchell and another v Glasgow City Council considered a claim brought by the family of a pensioner who was killed by his neighbour. Mr Mitchell had lived next door to Mr Drummond for many years. Both lived in flats owned by Glasgow City Council. For many years, Mr Drummond had threatened Mr Mitchell in addition to other people in the estate. In July 2001, Glasgow Council called Mr Drummond in to a meeting to discuss his behaviour. Immediately after the meeting, Mr Drummond attacked Mr Mitchell. Mr Mitchell subsequently died from the injuries sustained during the attack. Mr Drummond was sentenced to five years in prison.
Mr Mitchell’s family claimed against Glasgow Council, alleging that the Council owed a duty of care to Mr Mitchell that extended to warning him (and/or the police) about the meeting with Mr Drummond. Mr Mitchell’s family alleged that, had the Council told him about the meeting, Mr Mitchell would have been prepared for the possibility of Mr Drummond’s actions following that meeting.
The House of Lords unanimously found that the Council did not owe such a duty to Mr Mitchell. It relied heavily on the three stage test set out in the case of Caparo v Dickman: (1) the loss must be foreseeable, (2) the relationship between the parties must be sufficiently proximate and (3) it must be fair just and reasonable to impose the duty.
The Court added the following clarification to the Caparo v Dickman test:
1. Foreseeability of harm to a third party is not sufficient in itself to impose a duty on a party to protect someone from the criminal acts of third parties; and
2. It must be fair just and reasonable for a duty of care to be imposed. The Council’s act of meeting Mr Drummond to discuss his aggressive behaviour toward his tenants was not only ‘lawful’, but actually an effort to act on the complaints made by Mr Mitchell and the community about Mr Drummond.
Further information: Mitchell and Another v Glasgow City Council [2009] UKHL 11
