Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

Court: House of Lords

Judgement Date: 6 May 1970

Citation: [1970] UKHL 2, [1970] AC 1004

Claimants: Dorset Yacht Co Ltd

Defendant: Home Office

Nature of the Case: English Tort Law

Facts

On 21 September 1961, several borstal trainees were on duty and were working on Brownsea Island in Poole Harbour under the supervision of three borstal officers, who were all employed under the Home Office. One evening, the trainees were all left unattended by the officers, as they had all decided to retire to their beds for the night, which subsequently led the trainees to escape and mount a yacht nearby in the island’s territory. Whilst out on the yacht, the trainees came into collision with the claimants’ yacht, named the Silver Mist, which was in Dorset Yacht Company’s name, causing significant damage to the property. As a result, the claimants issued a writ, seeking damages for negligence against the Home Office, the ministerial body that the borstal officers were employed under, ultimately due to their failure to assert authority and control over their trainees.

Legal Issues of the Case

The principal issue at focus was whether the Home Office owed the claimants a duty of care based on the facts of the case at stake and, if found, whether they were liable for the negligence of the three borstal officers that were under its employment.

Key Arguments of the Case

Arguments of the Claimant On 6 February 1965, the claimants issued a writ, seeking damages for negligence against the Home Office, due to their failure to take effective measures to prevent the borstal trainees from escaping the island which led them to cause significant damage to their property on the night of 21 September 1961. The key arguments for negligence included:

• Knowledge that the borstal trainees had documented criminal convictions, key instances including “convictions for breaking and entering premises”[1] as well as reported escape attempts from the Borstal Institution in Portland.
• The Home Office’s failure to assert supervision and authority over the trainees but “permitted them to escape from the island without let or hindrance”.[2]
• The borstal officer’s failure to “keep any watch or exercise any control”[3] over the trainees “at the material time but retired to bed leaving the boys to their own devices”[4] and how none of the three officers were out on duty at the material time.
• The failure of the borstal officers in taking efficient measures for keeping the trainees under control at night.
• The failure of the Home Office to provide effective instructions to the officers to exercise “effective watch and control over the boys at night”.[5]
• The knowledge that there were numerous yachts offshore, such as the Silver Mist, and there was “no effective barrier in the way of the boys gaining access to such craft”[6] and the failure to take “adequate steps to check the movements of the boys”.[7]

On 19 December 1968, Thesiger J ruled that the preliminary issue of the case, concerning whether a duty of care was owed to Dorset Yacht Co Ltd by the Home Office, ruled in favour of the claimants. The Home Office appealed this decision to the House of Lords.

Arguments of the Defendant The predominant arguments of the defendant’s appeal included:

• There was no “common law duty”[8] on them to provide a duty of care to the claimants “in the performance of the statutory duties laid down in the Prison Act, 1952, and the Borstal Rules made thereunder”.[9]
• There was no obligation at common law in which an individual was “under a duty to restrain, control or supervise another person so as to prevent him from doing harm to a stranger”.[10] The Home Office ultimately argued that they could not be liable for the wrongdoing of another party.
• Public policy “required that the law should not construct a duty upon Borstal authorities to take care in the administration of the Borstal system”.[11]

Relevant Analysis of the Court

Key Judges of the Case: Lord Pearson, Lord Diplock and Lord Reid

Lord Pearson

Lord Pearson highlights that there was a duty of care owed to the claimants by the Home Office as a result of the term “neighbourhood” which is reiterated by Lord Atkin in the infamous case of ‘Donoghue v Stevenson’.[12] Pearson also reiterates how the damage caused to the claimants’ yacht was ultimately foreseeable as a result of the locational proximity. Pearson notes that the liability for the actions of a third party can arise when an individual is under a duty to control another person due to what is termed a “special relationship”, a common example of this includes the relationship between a parent and a child. In this instance, the Home Office, as well as the three borstal officers had a duty to exercise authority over the borstal trainees which suggests a relationship of control. This illustrates how a duty of care was owed to the claimants by the Home Office to ensure that they exercise effective control over the trainees.

Lord Reid

Lord Reid has a contrasting viewpoint to that of Lord Pearson. Reid highlights how there is a novus actus interveniens between the Home Office’s negligence and the damage caused to the Silver Mist, the claimant’s yacht. Lord Reid notes that it is still attainable to sue the Home Office for negligence provided that the damage caused to the yacht was highly predictable and not just foreseeable. Lord Reid ultimately highlights how the claimants suffered an unwanted harm due to the “inevitable result”[13] of the defendant’s failure to exercise reasonable care.

Lord Diplock

Lord Diplock argues that the damage of the yacht was the result of the actions of a third party, that being the Home Office. Diplock ultimately takes a different approach to Lord Atkin’s principle in the case of ‘Donoghue v Stevenson’.[14] For a duty of care to arise between the Home Office and the trainees, there must be what is called a “special relationship” between the two parties. It is evident that a special relationship is clear in the case present. The three borstal officers have a duty of care to ensure that they assert control over the trainees as well as make sure that the trainees are recaptured. They also have a duty of care to ensure that the trainees are not a cause for risk for stealing and causing damage in the locality of Brownsea Island.

Decision

The House of Lords held in favour of the claimant and dismissed the appeal made by the Home Office. A duty of care was owed to Dorset Yacht Company by the Home Office and that duty was breached due to their failure to assert control and authority over the borstal trainees who were under their supervision.

Significance of the Case

The decision in this case is a clear example of an exception to the omissions rule set out in ‘Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd’.[15] The case of ‘Smith’[16] emphasises how the law does not recognise a “general duty of care to prevent others from suffering…damage caused by the deliberate wrongdoing of third parties”.[17] This is because the law “does not impose liability for what are called pure omissions”.[18] However, there are some exceptions to this rule. The case of ‘Dorset Yacht Co Ltd’[19] reiterates how a duty of care is owed by third parties in instances which involve a special relationship whereby a “degree of control”[20] is exercised over a “third party by the defendant”.[21]

Bibliography  

Primary Sources  

Cases  

‘Donoghue v Stevenson’ [1932] AC 562.

‘Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd’ [1970] UKHL 2.

‘Smith v Littlewoods Organisation Ltd’ [1987] AC 241.

Secondary Sources

Books  

Horsey K and Rackeley E, ‘Tort Law’ (7^th edn, OUP 2021).

[1] [1970] UKHL 2.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Ibid

[11] Ibid.

[12] [1932] AC 562.

[13] [1970] UKHL 2.

[14] [1932] AC 562.

[15] [1987] AC 241.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid.

[19] [1970] UKHL 2.

[20] Kirsty Horsey and Erika Rackley, ‘Tort Law’, (7^th edn, OUP 2021) 95.

[21] Ibid.