Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619
Facts
Pamela Phelps experienced serious difficulties learning to read and was referred to the local education authority's psychological service. An educational psychologist assessed her but failed to identify dyslexia. Later independent assessments recognised the condition. Phelps alleged that the missed diagnosis deprived her of appropriate educational assistance and caused lasting disadvantage. She pursued the authority on the basis of its employee's negligent professional assessment. The litigation reached the House of Lords alongside other education cases, but her individual claim concerned the care owed when a psychologist undertakes a particular assessment of a child.
Legal Issue
Could an educational psychologist owe a child a professional duty of care in assessment, making the employing authority vicariously liable for a negligent failure to diagnose dyslexia?
Held
The House of Lords allowed Phelps's appeal and restored the decision in her favour. The educational psychologist undertaking the assessment owed a duty to exercise reasonable professional care, and the local authority could be vicariously liable for breach by its employee. Public provision of the service did not create blanket immunity from an ordinary professional negligence claim. The relevant harm concerned the adverse consequences of dyslexia which appropriate recognition and assistance could have mitigated, rather than the authority having caused dyslexia itself. The decision did not open an unrestricted claim whenever schooling produces disappointing results; duty, breach, causation and loss still required proof in the particular professional relationship.
⭐ Legal Principle
An educational professional undertaking an assessment may owe the child a duty to exercise reasonable care and skill. The employing local authority can be vicariously liable for breach. This does not establish a general guarantee of educational attainment or liability merely because a child's progress is disappointing.
Significance
Phelps is important in public-authority negligence because it applies ordinary professional responsibility within a statutory service. The focus is the task undertaken and the harm caused by its negligent performance, rather than a broad policy-versus-operation label. Robinson later explains that public bodies generally remain subject to ordinary negligence principles where established duties apply. Students should distinguish failing to recognise and mitigate a condition from causing the condition, and identify how competent assessment would have changed the claimant's position.
Common exam questions about this case
What professional undertaking supported the duty?
The psychologist undertook a particular assessment of the child using professional expertise. Careless performance could deprive her of suitable recognition and support. The duty therefore arose from that professional task and relationship, rather than a general promise by the authority that every pupil would achieve particular educational results.
Did the psychologist cause the claimant's dyslexia?
That was not the relevant allegation. The case concerned a negligent failure to identify dyslexia and the educational consequences that appropriate assistance could have mitigated. A causation answer should compare the claimant's actual position with the position following competent assessment, not assume that the underlying condition was itself caused by negligence.
Why was the authority's public status insufficient to defeat the claim?
Public provision of educational services did not automatically displace ordinary professional duties owed by an employee undertaking an assessment. The authority could be vicariously liable for that breach. The claimant still had to establish the relevant professional standard, causation and loss, so the decision was not general liability for educational dissatisfaction.