Mitchell v Glasgow City Council - [2008] CSIH 19
In Mitchell v Glasgow CC [2008] CSIH 19 the Inner House
allowed, in part, an appeal against the decision of the Outer House
(2005 SLT 1100). The decision raises questions over the
responsibilities of local authorities for the behaviour of
anti-social tenants. In dealing with the matter the Inner House
took the opportunity to explore the general question of delictual
responsibility for the acts of third parties. In Mitchell
the deceased had been murdered by a neighbour who was a fellow
tenant of the local authority. His widow and daughter had raised an
action of damages against the authority. The defenders had been
aware of the assailant's [Drummond's] threatening and aggressive
behaviour towards the deceased, including claims that Drummond
would kill the deceased if he were to be evicted. The attack on the
deceased occurred shortly after a meeting between the defenders and
Drummond, at which Drummond's possible eviction for anti-social
behaviour towards the deceased was discussed. The pursuers
maintained that the defenders owed the deceased and his family a
duty of care (a) to instigate eviction proceedings against Drummond
within a reasonable time of complaints about Drummond's behaviour
being made; and (b) to warn the deceased about the meeting with
Drummond.
The Inner House accepted that, as a general rule, a landlord
owes no duty of care to neighbours of his tenant in respect of that
tenant's actings. As a result the claim in Mitchell that
there was a duty of care to instigate eviction proceedings was
found to be irrelevant. The Inner House went on to point out that
only in exceptional circumstances will liability for negligence
attach to a defender in respect of the criminal acts of a third
party. This is because the law does not impose liability for
`pure omissions'. This is particularly good news from the
perspective of local authorities since `Such authorities are
naturally popular targets to sue, since they have deep pockets.
They also have a multitude of statutory functions which enable them
in some measure to regulate, or at least to be informed about, the
conduct of third parties. The existence of such functions makes it
relatively easy to allege that the injury caused by a third party
is attributable to some extent to the failure of a public authority
to take steps to avert the risk which the third party might
present.'
There was some consolation for the pursuers since, on the basis
that an assumption of responsibility may have arisen, the claim
that there was a duty of care to warn the deceased was allowed to
go to proof. Difficult issues of causation stand in the path of a
claimant seeking to win on the basis of a failure to warn.
Establishing that a warning would have made a difference given the
existence of an aggressive and determined neighbour would not be
easy.
Contributed by Douglas Brodie