The case of Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon ([2000] UKHL 47), decided by the House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) on July 27, 2000, stands as a significant legal precedent in the United Kingdom, particularly concerning the duty of care owed by educational psychologists to students with learning difficulties, such as dyslexia. This case emerged from the experiences of Pamela Helen Phelps, whose educational journey was significantly impacted by the failure to diagnose her dyslexia in a timely manner.

Pamela was born in 1973 and began school in 1978. By 1980, concerns about her lack of progress led to her being seen by an educational psychologist. Despite this, and further educational interventions, her difficulties in reading and writing persisted. In 1985, she underwent another assessment by an educational psychologist employed by the London Borough of Hillingdon's School Psychological Service. This psychologist reported no specific weaknesses despite Pamela's reading age being significantly below her chronological age. Crucially, dyslexia was not diagnosed at this stage.

After leaving school and experiencing difficulties in employment due to her literacy challenges, Pamela was privately assessed in 1990 and found to be dyslexic, with a reading age of 7.9 years. In 1994, she initiated legal action against the London Borough of Hillingdon, alleging negligence and breach of statutory duty for failing to identify her needs and provide appropriate care for her learning difficulties, including dyslexia.

The central issue before the House of Lords was whether the local authority, through its employed educational psychologist, owed a duty of care to Pamela in the assessment and diagnosis of her learning difficulties. The trial judge had initially ruled in Pamela's favour, finding that the educational psychologist did owe a duty of care and had breached that duty by failing to diagnose her dyslexia in 1985. The Court of Appeal subsequently overturned this decision.

However, the House of Lords ultimately allowed Pamela's appeal, reinstating the trial judge's findings on the duty of care and negligence. The Law Lords held that professionals within Local Education Authorities (LEAs), including educational psychologists, do owe a duty of care to their pupils. This duty arises from their professional role and the foreseeable impact of their assessments and advice on the child's education and well-being.

In Pamela's case, the House of Lords specifically found that the educational psychologist knew or ought to have known that her advice would be relied upon by Pamela's parents and the local authority in determining the appropriate educational support. The failure to diagnose Pamela's dyslexia in 1985 was deemed a breach of the duty of care, as an ordinarily competent educational psychologist exercising reasonable skill would have identified the condition. This failure had directly led to a delay in Pamela receiving appropriate support, causing her harm and resulting in subsequent economic losses.

The Phelps v. London Borough of Hillingdon case established several key principles:

• Duty of Care: Educational psychologists employed by LEAs owe a professional duty of care to the children they assess.
• Vicarious Liability: LEAs can be held vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees, including educational psychologists, in the performance of their professional duties.
• Foreseeability of Harm: Failure to exercise reasonable skill and care in assessing and diagnosing learning difficulties can foreseeably lead to harm for the child, including educational setbacks and potential economic losses.
• Standard of Care: Educational psychologists are expected to exercise the degree of care and skill expected of an ordinarily competent member of their profession.

This landmark ruling had significant implications for the accountability of educational authorities and the rights of students with special educational needs. It affirmed that professionals in the education system have a responsibility to exercise their expertise with due care and that failures to do so, resulting in harm, can lead to legal liability.

The Phelps case underscored the importance of accurate and timely identification of learning difficulties like dyslexia and the crucial role of educational psychologists in this process. It paved the way for greater scrutiny of educational assessments and the support provided to students with special needs, aiming to ensure that they receive the appropriate education to which they are entitled.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: imranwahab216@gmail.com, Ph no: 9836576565