CA-2024-001818 - [2025] EWCA Civ 1273

Ms Giovannetti started by noting that the structures of section 55 (1) of the 2009 Act and section 149 (1) of the 2010 Act are not identical: as to this, see para. 71 above. She nevertheless accepted that the duty under section 55 could, like the PSED, be continuing in character. Her case, however, was that whether that was so in a particular case was context-specific: more particularly, it depended on whether the function to which it related was itself continuous in character or was a one-off. At paras. 53-56 of her skeleton argument she commented briefly on each of the individual authorities relied on by the Claimant, with a view to establishing that they were consistent with that analysis. The only one of those cases to which she specifically referred in her oral submissions was Bridges, which she said was a case where there was an ongoing duty to monitor because AFR Locate was in the nature of a trial. The present case was different. The Secretary of State was not discharging any continuous function. She had discharged the relevant function by putting in place a policy, prior to 2 November 2009, and had (assuming that the original case is rejected) exercised no distinct function since then.