Facts: Essex decided that it ought to inform foster carers and prospective adopters about the children’s behaviour problems, but it failed to do so. The children were far more difficult than the carers would have agreed to look after had they known the full facts but, notwithstanding the personal injury and distress caused, they went on to adopt them in any event.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Ward, Hale and Scott Baker LJJ) held that whilst adoption agencies did not owe a general duty to care to prospective adopters, they did owe a duty of care at least to pass on information that they had decided ought to be passed on (and information that it would be Wednesbury unreasonable not to pass on). Had the relevant information been passed on the adults would not have fostered and then adopted the children, so the local authority’s breach of duty resulted in the injury and loss. Physical attacks were foreseeable, so that consequential psychiatric injury was also covered. However, there could not be any award of damages after the adoption proceeded because, by that time, the parents knew enough about the children to make a decision for themselves.