PI Brief Update

Tindall and another v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33 - Andrew Ratomski, Temple Garden Chambers

18/11/24. Date of judgment: 23 October 2024

The Supreme Court has handed down an important decision on the duty of care in negligence. Tindall revisits the vexed question in English tort law of liability for omissions and whether a party can be found liable for making matters worse (and the evidential issues that any claimant making such an allegation will typically face).

Facts

The assumed facts were that Mr Kendall skidded on a patch of black ice on 4 March 2013 in the late afternoon and his car rolled into a ditch. The emergency services attended, Mr Kendall was taken to hospital, the police cleared up the debris and later removed a “POLICE SLOW” sign. Nothing was done about the black ice.

Twenty minutes later Mr Bird lost control of his vehicle on the same area of black ice and skidded into a head on collision with a vehicle driven by Mr Tindall and both drivers were sadly killed. The Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police had sought to strike out a claim brought against him by Mr Tindall’s widow.

The Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal and the claim remained struck out (upholding the Court of Appeal). The police intervention, on the assumed facts, was held not to give rise to any possible liability for making matters worse and none of the exceptions to the general rule, that there was no duty of care to protect a person from injury, were made out.

After reviewing the caselaw, the Supreme Court helpfully...

Image © Garry Wright

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...