The case concerned 4 children born between 1982 and 1988 given the initials Z, A, B, and C (formerly X in the UK). They lived in Bedfordshire. The family first came to the attention of Social Services in 1987. There then followed a catalogue of appalling conditions being witnessed by the Local Authority at home over a prolonged period of time before they were taken into foster care and then Local Authority care in or around 1991/1992 i.e. after 5 years of trauma at home.

A Consultant Psychiatric Report of January 1993 stated that the experiences of the children were "horrific" and added that the case was the worst case of neglect and emotional abuse she had seen in her professional career. In her opinion Social Services had "leaned over backwards to avoid putting these children on the Child Protection Register and had delayed too long, leaving at least 3 of the children with serious psychological disturbances as a result".

Final Care Orders were made in 1993 at Milton Keynes County Court.

Proceedings were brought by the Official Solicitor against Bedfordshire County Council. The District Judge struck the case out on the grounds of no cause of action. The decision was affirmed by the High Court, and the Court of Appeal. In the House of Lords, in a famous judgement, the Local Authority was given, arguably, immunity from suit because of the floodgates argument if children or parents were allowed to sue Local Authorities because the negligent way they had undertaken their childcare responsibilities.

In March 1996 all children applied for CICB compensation and were awarded sums ranging from £1000 to £3000 each in recognition that "the children were exposed to appalling neglect over an extended period".

There were clear statutory obligations under Sections 1 and 2 of the Childcare Act 1980, Section 17 of the Children Act 1979, Section 20 of the Children Act 1989, and Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. There is a clear complaints procedure set out under Section 26 of the Children Act 1989 against Local Authorities.

The difficulties in proceeding under domestic law are illustrated by the cases of W and Others v Essex County Council (1998 3AER page 111), Barrett v Enfield Borough Council, and Osman.

The applicants complained that the Local Authority had:-

• Failed to protect them from ill treatment by their parents in circumstances where the Social Services were aware of the serious neglect and abuse which they suffered at home. In breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
• That the Local Authority had failed to protect their physical and moral integrity. In breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
• That they had no access to Court in respect of their complaints. That they were denied an effective remedy in respect of their complaints. In breach of Article 6 of the Convention.

The Convention in all cases is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom.

Article 3 - "The Commission was satisfied that the authorities were aware of the serious ill treatment and neglect suffered by the applicants over a period of years at the hands of their parents and failed, despite the means reasonably available to them, to take any effective steps to bring it to an end. It finds therefore that the state has failed in its positive obligation under Article 3 to provide the applicants with adequate protection against inhuman and degrading treatment". (Paragraph 98)

Article 8 (Right to respect for a private life) - The Commission found no separate issue arising under Article 8.

Article 6 - "The Commission concludes that the application of the exclusionary rules to the applicants claims constituted a disproportionate restriction on their right of access to Court" (paragraph 116). "The Commission finds that the possibility of applying for Criminal Injuries Compensation or for an investigation by the Ombudsman does not provide the applicants with adequate alternative means of obtaining a redress in respect of their claims" (paragraph 115). Even so "the risk that liability would open a floodgate of litigation from discontented parents is a speculative factor which is only of limited weight. The conflictual nature of childcare work equally reflects the fact that it frequently concerns matters of fundamentally individual importance. The Commission notes that the tests of foreseeability of damage and proximity serve already as limitations of the categories of Plaintiffs who can legitimately claim against allegedly negligent Local Authorities and is not impressed by the argument that liability would render the Social Services more cautious in the exercise of their powers." (Paragraph 114).

Article 13 - "everyone …….. Shall have an effective remedy before a National Authority not withstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity" The Commission held that no separate issue arises under Article 13.