QB-2022-002971 - [2025] EWHC 2445 (KB)

Issues for determination

During the course of trial, the parties reached an agreement, subject to liability, on all issues of causation and quantum. Quantum was agreed in the sum of £145,000 (£60,000 for general damages and £85,000 for special damages), inclusive of interest. Ms McTague confirmed that the pleaded claims in respect of alleged breach of contractual warranties and statutory duties were not pursued.

Mr Edwards, counsel for the Defendant, confirmed that the effect of the agreement on causation and quantum was that causation was conceded in the event of a finding of negligence in respect of either Issue 1 or Issue 3 above.

In his submissions Mr Edwards treated Issue 2 (at [6.b] above) as a facet of the Claimant’s case on Issues 1 and 3 going to the standard of care, rather than a breach of a duty capable of giving rise to a claim in damages on the facts of this case. In relation to this, it is right to note that the Claimant’s Particulars of Claim, which were not pleaded by counsel, are unconventional in certain respects, and, in particular, the pleading in respect of Issue 2 provides little, if any, explanation as to (a) what it is alleged that the Defendant should have done which it did not do; and (b) how the alleged negligence is said to have caused or contributed to the incidents of 25-27 September 2019 and/or to the Claimant’s injury. Ms McTague characterised Issue 2 as a failure on the part of the Defendant to recognise the Claimant’s profile as giving rise to safeguarding risks, such that the school wrongly treated them as “behavioural” issues to be punished rather than “risk” issues requiring protective measures to be put in place. These issues are addressed further in section F at [103] to [119] below.

Subject to this difference of approach in relation to Issue 2, in light of the parties’ agreement on causation and quantum, the issues for determination are limited to the nature and scope of the alleged duties of care owed by the Defendant, the relevant standard of care, and whether the Defendant acted in breach of the duties as set out in Issues 1, 2 and 3 at [6] above.