Abstract

With an emphasis on ‘failure to remove’ cases, planning and environmental issues, and building safety and homelessness obligations, this article explores the changing terrain of public liability claims against UK local authorities. Finch v. Surrey County Council [2024] (scope 3 emissions in environmental impact assessments), R (Moakes) v. Canterbury City Council [2025] (procedural fairness in planning), SZR v. Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2024] (ECHR Articles 3 and 8 cumulative neglect claims) and significant Building Safety Act 2022 decisions like Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd. v. Prater [2024] and 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd. v. Click St Andrews Ltd. [2024]. Increasing judicial scrutiny is demonstrated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in R (Imam) v. Croydon [2023] and the 34% increase in High Court public sector claims in 2025.

A shift toward fact-specific accountability, more stringent climate and safety obligations, and fewer budgetary defences is indicated by recent jurisprudence. While claimants have more options for redress, local authorities need to fortify their compliance frameworks. The conflict between statutory obligations and resource limitations in post-pandemic Britain is highlighted in the article.

In the UK, public liability claims against local authorities cover a broad range of situations in which councils could be held liable for human rights violations, statutory duty violations, or negligence. Failures in social services, planning choices, building safety enforcement, and homelessness assistance are frequently the cause of these claims. Several significant rulings in the last few years have defined the extent of local authority liability, highlighting the importance of procedural justice, compliance with legal requirements, and the boundaries of judicial review. This article analyses the ramifications of significant cases for both local governments and claimants.

COUNCILS & “FAILURE TO REMOVE”

One common type of lawsuit is a “failure to remove” claim, in which local governments are accused of not doing enough to protect vulnerable people, especially children, from harm. The High Court looked at a case under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in SZR v Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council [2024]. The claimant said that the council didn’t take her out of a situation of severe neglect for four years, which caused her long-term mental harm. The court turned down the council’s requests for summary judgement and strike-out because the claims were reasonable. The decision was mostly based on the claim of cumulative neglect, which was backed up by expert psychiatric evidence and could be seen as degrading treatment under Article 3. The judge also left the meaning of “real and immediate” risk open, which means that social services’ efforts to make things better might not mean they aren’t responsible if things keep getting worse. This decision makes liability possible in more situations than just traditional negligence. It also allows claims based on human rights even when the facts are in dispute.

The SZR case, which builds on earlier cases like AB v Worcestershire County Council [2023], shows that local governments must take proactive steps to reduce risks. The implications are big: councils will be watched more closely when it comes to protecting children, and claims can go on even if they are thrown out early if there is evidence that they are valid. This trend shows that judges are moving toward fact-specific evaluations, which could raise the cost of settlements and lead to better use of resources in social services. For claimants, it offers a means to contest systemic failures without the necessity of demonstrating common law duties of care, as limited by Supreme Court decisions in Poole v GN and CN [2019] and HXA v Surrey County Council [2023].

PLANNING & THE ENVIRONMENT

Planning decisions have also led to major public liability disputes, where mistakes made by local governments can lead to challenges. In R (Moakes) v Canterbury City Council (2025, Court of Appeal), the person who appealed said that the planning permission for development in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was unfair because the council didn’t follow its own rules about public speaking rights. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s decision to throw out the case, saying that procedural errors do not make decisions invalid unless there is proof of harm. The judgement made it clear that courts only use the “no substantial difference” test in section 31(2A) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 after determining that the error was illegal and that it materially changed the process. In this case, written submissions were enough, so there was no partiality.

This case strengthens protections for local governments in planning by letting decisions stand if the violations are minor and don’t hurt anyone. It stops people from making opportunistic challenges and stresses the need for fair consultation schemes. One possible effect is that councils will have less liability because claimants now have to show how procedural flaws affected outcomes. This could make planning processes easier as development pressures rise.

Taking the environment into account when making plans has made liability risks even higher. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Finch (Weald Action Group) v Surrey County Council [2024], the UKSC 20 court overturned a planning permission for oil extraction because the council didn’t take into account “scope 3” greenhouse gas emissions from downstream use. The court said that environmental impact assessments must include indirect emissions if they are likely to happen and are important. This decision makes it harder for local governments to ignore climate effects, and it makes more people responsible for careless assessments that hurt the environment.

Finch asserts that councils need to do full climate modelling when giving out permits, or they could face lawsuits for not doing enough research. It fits with the UK’s goal of becoming net-zero, but it makes things harder for businesses and raises the risk of lawsuits, especially in energy projects. Claimants, like environmental groups, have stronger reasons to ask for a judicial review, which makes sustainable development more accountable.

HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION

The Building Safety Act 2022 (BSA) made changes to building safety that added new ways to hold people responsible. The Technology and Construction Court gave out the first Building Liability Order (BLO) under section 130 of the BSA in Willmott Dixon Construction Ltd v Prater & Ors [2024]. The claimant wished to hold related companies responsible for bad work. The court denied the stay, saying it was fair and just to settle the BLO at the same time as the main claim. This makes it easier for people to be responsible for the costs of fixing up hazardous buildings.

In another case, 381 Southwark Park Road RTM Company Ltd v Click St Andrews Ltd [2024], a BLO was granted against a former owner for breaking the Defective Premises Act 1972, which covers issues like water damage, fire safety, and structural problems. The ruling made it clear that breaking a contract can lead to BSA liabilities, which strengthens responsibility after the Grenfell tragedy. These BLO cases are an important transition in the way things are done, breaking down corporate walls to make sure remediation funding is available. If oversight fails, local governments may face secondary claims, but the rulings mostly affect developers. Some effects are that leaseholders will get their problems solved faster and councils will have to do more research before approving new buildings.

Homelessness responsibilities continue to present significant liability risks. The Supreme Court ruled in R (Imam) v London Borough of Croydon [2023] that not having enough resources is not a valid reason for failing to meet obligations in the law when it comes to providing suitable housing. Mandatory orders can be given unless detailed proof shows that they are impossible to implement. This decision, which was sent back to the High Court, stresses the importance of judges enforcing welfare obligations. After the Imam case, local governments need to focus on preparation for emergencies because their budgetary defences aren’t enough. The case has been followed by more claims, which has led to an increase in public sector lawsuits. There was an 11% rise in the first half of 2025. It shows the conflict between legal obligations and financial pressures, which could lead to higher compensation payments.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that public liability in the context of local authorities is becoming more relevant. In 2025, public sector claims in High Court cases rose by 34%, with local governments often being sued. This rise, which is due to more regulatory scrutiny and backlogs after the pandemic, shows how weak service delivery can be. Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey [2025] shows how using AI to make decisions can lead to new risks. Councils need to be open about their decisions to avoid claims of unfairness. In the end, recent decisions show that the courts seek to find a balance between holding those in power accountable and running the government effectively. Local councils need to improve their compliance frameworks to reduce liability, and claimants benefit from changes in how human rights and laws are understood. As litigation continues in 2026, proactive changes could lower costs and make public services better.