Mitchell v Glasgow City Council [2009] 1 AC 87

House of Lords

 
Facts: Mitchell (M) and Drummond (D), who were neighbors, had ongoing disputes. M complained to Glasgow City Council (GCC), which summoned D to serve an eviction notice due to his antisocial behavior. After the meeting, D returned home, angry, and fatally attacked M with a metal pipe. M’s estate claimed that GCC had a duty of care to warn M of the danger, given D’s history. 

Issues: When can a party be liable for an omission? When does a duty of care arise? 

Held : The House of lords allowed an appeal by the council after applying the caparo test. 

• Lord Hope : Foreseeability alone is insufficient to impose a duty of care. A duty arises not just from foreseeable harm but also from the proximity of the relationship, as outlined in Caparo and Smith v Littlewoods. The duty is based on the relationship between the parties, and its scope is determined by what is reasonably foreseeable within that relationship. Liability for omissions, especially involving third parties, is confined. It must be fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty to warn. Without an assumed responsibility by the defenders, such as advising or inducing reliance, no duty to warn arises within the scope of the relationship. 

• Lord Scott: Liability for negligence is not imposed for mere omissions unless there is an additional feature transforming a moral obligation into a legal duty. This additional feature may be the nature of the victim's risk, the relationship between the parties, or an assumption of responsibility. 

• Lord Roger: When the defender's act enables a third party to harm the claimant, it must be wrongful to impose liability.