King's / Queen's Bench Division of the High Court

QB-2022-002447 - [2025] EWHC 2803 (KB)

Fecha: 29-Oct-2025

As against C2

As against C2

D1 seeks a strike out or summary judgment similarly with respect to the HRA operational duty claims by C2, but does not assert that C2’s claims of systemic breach are demurrable. There is nothing in the pleaded case, says D1, to suggest that D1 knew, or ought to have known, of any risk to C2 at the point of D1’s limited involvement on 14 August 2018. Any allegation that D1 had a duty to protect C2 is bound to fail.

Heading
THE CLAIM
As against all Claimants
As against C2
As against C3
As against C2 and C3
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Events of 14 August 2018
The index incident
The Common Law Claim
The Human Rights Case
As against C2
As against C3
D1’s position on the Common law duty in its defence
D1’s position on the Human Rights Case
Framework for the Application
The Relevant Statutory Provisions
Section 139 Discussion
Duty of Care Discussion
Consistency with statutory framework
The omissions principle and its exceptions – an assumption of responsibility – services or control?
He continued
Conclusions