{"id":14381,"date":"2023-07-10T22:44:10","date_gmt":"2023-07-10T22:44:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?p=14381"},"modified":"2023-11-23T09:46:19","modified_gmt":"2023-11-23T14:46:19","slug":"case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619","title":{"rendered":"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\" id=\"h-legal-principles-and-key-points\"><strong>Legal Principles and Key Points<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>This case featured four appellants (Cs), hence, the other sub-cases include Anderton v Clwyd County Council, G (A Minor) v Bromley London Borough Council, and Jarvis v Hampshire County Council<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of the Case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>C was born in 1973 and was referred the local education authority\u2019s (D) school psychological service by her school as C was did not show much progress at school; this happened when D was aged 12; C\u2019s reading progresses was the same as that of a 6-year old<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>D appointed an educational psychologist to report the results of C\u2019s testing, which at the time indicated no specific weaknesses<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>C received further private testing just before leaving school and it was revealed that C had, in fact, been dyslexic \u2013 the diagnosis was affirmed separately in 1994 and 1996<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>C brought an action for vicarious liability (where an employer is responsible for the actions of their employee) for the educational psychologist\u2019s negligence in assessing whether C had any disabilities<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>C was awarded damages as a duty of care to C by D\u2019s psychologist was established; the worsening of C\u2019s dyslexia could have been prevented by timely and appropriate treatment, so the psychologist had negligently caused C a damage<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Issues in Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>C appealed to the House of Lords because the court in the previous instance (the Court of Appeal) allowed D (the local authority) the right to appeal<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Held by the House of Lords &nbsp;<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Appeal allowed \u2013 a duty of care owed to C as the psychologist exercising a particular skill meant that unless his examination was performed properly, C may foreseeably be injured in the future; the psychologist owed C a duty of care, even if this may be contrary to public policy verdicts, which seek to establish protection over public establishments if they are negligent in their dealings with people<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Held \u2013 failing to mitigate consequences, e.g. dyslexia constituted \u2018personal injuries to a person\u2019 under s.33(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Appeals allowed in the first, second and fourth cases; appeal dismissed in G (A Minor) v Bromley London Borough Council<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Lord Slynn of Headley<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p>Restored the order of Garland J and concluded that Parliament\u2019s intent was to award damages for employee failures based on the principle of vicarious liability, which Lord Slynn belived was applicable; accepted that Garland J\u2019s view that \u2018&#8221;the adverse consequences of the plaintiff&#8217;s dyslexia could have been mitigated\u2019 [at p.657]<\/p><div id=\"caree-3937508398\" class=\"caree-within-the-content caree-entity-placement\" style=\"margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto;text-align: center;\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png\" alt=\"\"  srcset=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1.png 448w, https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/10\/MRF-169650-in-article-336x280-1-300x250.png 300w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 448px) 100vw, 448px\" width=\"448\" height=\"373\"  style=\"display: inline-block;\" \/><\/div>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>\u2018Hillingdon was vicariously liable for breaches of that duty by Miss Melling. She was in breach, first, when she failed in October 1985 to diagnose that Pamela was dyslexic.\u2019 [at p.646]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>\u2018I do not, however, accept the absolute statement that an education authority &#8220;owes no common law duty of care &#8230; in the exercise of the powers &#8230; relating to children with special educational needs&#8221; under the 1981 Act. That issue, however, as I have said does not fall for decision in Pamela&#8217;s case.\u2019 [at p.658]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Persuaded Lord Lloyd of Berwick, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett and Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle to agree with him and allow the appeals; Lord Jauncey merely added an \u2018observation of Lord Nicholls that the existence of a duty of care owed by teachers to their pupils should not be regarded as a basis for the mounting of generalised &#8220;educational malpractice&#8221; claims.\u2019 [at p.665]<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead broadly agreed with Lord Slynn, but dissented due to \u2018reservations about any attempt to draw a sharp-edged distinction between &#8220;policy&#8221; decisions and &#8220;operational&#8221; decisions [\u2026]\u2019 [at p.676]<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Legal Principles and Key Points Facts of the Case Issues in Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619 Held by the House of Lords &nbsp; Lord Slynn of Headley Restored the order of Garland J and concluded that Parliament\u2019s intent was to award damages for employee failures based on the principle of [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":13103,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[23],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-14381","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-case-summaries","8":"entry"},"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v24.4 (Yoast SEO v27.5) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619 | Careerinlaw.net | UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-07-10T22:44:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2023-11-23T14:46:19+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Boris Ignachkov\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\"},\"headline\":\"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-10T22:44:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:46:19+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\"},\"wordCount\":646,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Case Summaries\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\",\"name\":\"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619 | Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-07-10T22:44:10+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2023-11-23T14:46:19+00:00\",\"description\":\"In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/06\\\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/3\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png\",\"width\":1920,\"height\":1080,\"caption\":\"Careerinlaw.net | UK\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa\",\"name\":\"Boris Ignachkov\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Boris Ignachkov\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/careerinlaw.net\\\/uk\\\/author\\\/boris\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619","og_description":"In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability","og_url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619","og_site_name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","article_published_time":"2023-07-10T22:44:10+00:00","article_modified_time":"2023-11-23T14:46:19+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Boris Ignachkov","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Boris Ignachkov","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619"},"author":{"name":"Boris Ignachkov","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa"},"headline":"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619","datePublished":"2023-07-10T22:44:10+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:46:19+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619"},"wordCount":646,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","articleSection":["Case Summaries"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619","name":"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619 | Careerinlaw.net | UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","datePublished":"2023-07-10T22:44:10+00:00","dateModified":"2023-11-23T14:46:19+00:00","description":"In the case of Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619, there existed a clash between public policy decisions absolving public authorities of liability, and vicarious liability to determine whether Hillingdon LBC offered a duty of care to Phelps for their negligent treatment of her educational disability","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/06\/Case-Summary-Careerinlaw-Cover-Photo.jpg","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Case Summary Careerinlaw Cover Photo"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/case-summary-phelps-v-hillingdon-london-borough-council-2001-2-ac-619#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Case Summary: Phelps v Hillingdon London Borough Council [2001] 2 AC 619"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#organization","name":"Careerinlaw.net | UK","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2023\/12\/Careerinlawnet-United-Kingdom-Cover-Photo.png","width":1920,"height":1080,"caption":"Careerinlaw.net | UK"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/#\/schema\/person\/8fdee476362bf382fd21700bd5a45bfa","name":"Boris Ignachkov","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/33b22c61b285e32cec7b03ee9d87678f2b2f6aeb3d82f210db749e350d39e0a4?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Boris Ignachkov"},"url":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/author\/boris"}]}},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14381","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14381"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14381\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/13103"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/careerinlaw.net\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}