Despite the fact that Hill could no longer be treated as having established a blanket immunity, its policy factors still led to the denial of a duty of care to this claimant.

Due to lack of effective liaison between two police call centres concerning a 999 call made by a woman, she was then murdered by her ex-partner. There was held to have been no duty of care owed to her by the police.

The Supreme Court rejected the opportunity to extend the duty of care owed by the police to potential victims of crime, and instead reiterated the policy behind the decisions in Hill and Brooks. It was not necessary to amend the common law in order to adhere to arts 2 and 3 ECHR.

Police failed to respond adequately to fears raised by a campaign of harassment against the plaintiff’s family, and murder resulted.

Despite proximity and foreseeability the Hill policy factors led to a finding of no duty of care. Note the contrary outcome of the case before the ECtHR.

A group of combined ‘education cases’ concerned with damage caused by failures to diagnose and provide for pupils’ special needs gave rise to an arguable case for duty of care.

Despite recognizing the need for caution, the House of Lords did not find a strong enough policy reason to justify striking out these claims.

The defendant did not adequately protect his disused property. It was broken into by vandals, who lit a fire which damaged neighbouring premises. The House of Lords held that there was no liability both for reasons of lack of duty and lack of breach.

Lord Goff set out the parameters of duty of care in cases where the defendant had failed to prevent his property facilitating a third party’s tort.

A local authority failed to remove a highway obstruction, which later was involved in causing an accident.

There was no liability because the matter was within the discretion of the highway authority and, since the alleged wrong was an omission, ‘something more’ was required.

A bus driver negligently left a bus, with its keys, in a lay-by near a pub. A thief took the bus and caused an accident resulting in a death.

Applying the position of Lord Goff in Smith, it was held that, given the lack of foreseeability of the intervention by the thief and the lack of proximity with the victim, a duty of care would not be fair, just, and reasonable.

A prosecution witness notified the police of threats against him and was ultimately murdered. The negligence action against the police failed owing to the conclusion that there had been no apparent ‘real and immediate risk’.

In some circumstances such a situation could give rise to a positive duty to provide protection, under the right to life in art 2 ECHR. Here, the facts did not support such a duty.

A negligence action was brought against a local authority social services department in respect of damage suffered after failure to take children into care.

In finding in favour of the defendant the House of Lords gave a number of policy reasons according to which this public body should have the benefit of a presumption against a duty of care.