![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Bradford-Smart v West Sussex County Council [2002] EWCA Civ 7 (23 January 2002) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2002/7.html Cite as: [2002] EWCA Civ 7 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM Garland J
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Wednesday 23rd January 2002 |
||
B e f o r e :
LADY JUSTICE HALE
and
SIR DENIS HENRY
____________________
Leah Bradford-Smart |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
West Sussex County Council |
Respondent |
____________________
Smith Bernal Reporting Limited, 190 Fleet Street
London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7421 4040, Fax No: 020 7831 8838
Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr Edward Faulks QC and Mr A Warnock (for the Respondent)
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Judge:
"Mother thought Leah had settled fairly well into her new school. She was concerned that Leah would come against problems with bullying, as previously. I agreed to watch for any problems."
"I cannot conclude from the evidence before me that there was bullying let alone that the school knew about it and failed to take appropriate action".
As to year 2, he concluded that:
"there was some name-calling and uncouth behaviour on the bus but nothing of the targeted and persistent nature required to constitute bullying ".
"I have no hesitation in finding that from July 1992 Leah was seriously bullied at home and on the bus going to and from school. I also find that threats were made as to what would happen in school. ... In the third year Mrs Ashworth's defensive actions prevented bullying in school although Leah was fearful as a result of what happened outside school".
He further held that Mrs Ashworth did all that she could as a class teacher "to safeguard Leah while she was at school. I do not consider that her conduct fell short of that to be expected of an ordinarily competent class teacher or that she did or failed to do anything which no class teacher of ordinary skill would have done or refrained from doing if acting with ordinary care".
"Did you accept then that Mrs Bradford-Smart believed that Leah had indeed been bullied at school?"
She replied:
"I did not know what Mrs Bradford-Smart believed. I knew what was being expressed".
"wanted to protect her, but I wanted her to feel more confident about these children and not to be fearful and withdrawn in my classroom. So I sent her out when I did not feel it was essential" (to keep her in the classroom)
She accepted that she felt it was part of her duty "to take on board what had happened outside school and be very sure that it did not have consequences inside school", and she felt that she had succeeded in doing so.
"I have come to the conclusion that granted a school knows that a pupil is being bullied at home or on the way to and from school, it would not be practical let alone fair just and reasonable, to impose upon it a greater duty than to take reasonable steps to prevent that bullying spilling over into the school. . . . I would regard the duty as going no further than to prevent the bullying actually happening inside the school; in other words, to take effective defensive measures. If the school chooses, as a matter of judgment, to be proactive then that is a matter of discretion not obligation."
"In my judgment a school which accepts a pupil assumes responsibility not only for his physical wellbeing but also for his educational needs. The education of the pupil is the very purpose for which the child goes to the school. The headteacher, being responsible for the school, himself comes under a duty to exercise the reasonable skills of a headmaster in relation to such educational needs. If it comes to the attention of the headmaster that a pupil is underperforming, he does owe a duty to take such steps as a reasonable teacher would consider appropriate to try and deal with such under-performance. . . . If a headteacher gives advice to the parents, then in my judgment he must exercise the skills and care of a reasonable teacher in giving such advice."
"(1) A headteacher and teachers have a duty to take such care of pupils in their charge as a careful parent would have in like circumstances, including a duty to take positive steps to protect their well-being. . .(2) A headteacher and teachers have a duty to exercise the reasonable skills of their calling in teaching and otherwise responding to the educational needs of their pupils. . . .
(4) The duty is to exercise the skill and care of a reasonable headteacher and/or teachers, applying the Bolam test, namely, whether the teaching and other provision for a pupil's educational needs accords with that which might have been acceptable at the time by reasonable members of the teaching profession. . . "
This approach was upheld when that case, along with others, reached the House of Lords in Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2000] 3 WLR 776. But Lord Slynn gave this warning, at 792:
"The difficulties of the tasks involved and of the circumstances under which people have to work in this area must also be borne fully in mind. The professionalism, dedication and standards of those engaged in the provision of educational services are such that cases of liability for negligence will be exceptional. But though claims should not be encouraged and the courts should not find negligence too readily, the fact that some claims may be without foundation or exaggerated does not mean that valid claims should necessarily be excluded."
Order: Appeal dismissed with costs, such costs to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed; the determination of any personal liability under Section 11 of the Access to Justice Act adjourned generally, with liberty to the defendant to apply.