Mitchell (AP) and another (AP) (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants) v Glasgow City Council (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) (Scotland), [2009] UKHL 11

In July 2001 Mr Mitchell was violently assaulted by his neighbour Mr Drummond and died from his injuries. Both Mr Mitchell and Mr Drummond were tenants of Glasgow City Council and the latter's propensity for violence and anti-social behaviour towards, in particular, Mr Mitchell, were well-documented and known to the Council. The final and fatal violence in July followed a meeting on that day between Council officials and Mr Drummond at which the Council officials had informed Mr Drummond that a notice of proceedings to recover possession of his council dwelling would be served on him and that any continuance of his anti-social behaviour could lead to his eviction.

Mr Mitchell's widow and daughter sought to hold the Council liable in damages for loss, injury and damage as a result of fault and negligence of the Council. The damages claim was based also on the contention that the Council acted unlawfully and in a way incompatible with Mr Mitchell's Convention right to life.

What is alleged to be a breach of a common law duty of care owed by the Council to Mr Mitchell, is that the Council neither warned Mr Mitchell that the meeting was about to be held nor, following the meeting, warned him that it had been held, thereby denying Mr Mitchell the opportunity, forewarned, of taking precautions to safeguard himself from the possibly violent reactions of Mr Drummond.

The House of Lords unanimously allowed the Council's appeal on the duty of care issue. The Council's obligation to Mr Mitchell was to act as a responsible landlord and to take steps to terminate Mr Drummond's tenancy in order to remove him from the locality where he was causing trouble. That obligation did not suffice to justify treating the Council as having assumed responsibility for Mr Mitchell's safety. The Council did not have any delictual duty to protect Mr Mitchell against assaults from Mr Drummond that the Council's steps might possibly provoke. The attempt to found an action upon the Council's failure to warn was an attempt to found an action upon a mere omission.

With regard to the cross-appeal the House of Lords held that there was no basis in the pursuers' averments for saying that the defenders ought to have known that, when Mr Drummond left the meeting, there was a real and immediate risk to the deceased's life. Accordingly, the House unanimously dismissed the cross-appeal.