HART v WING-SAN CHIN (2025) UKPC 51 summarises at para 32 the law on when a person should receive NOTICE in advance of ADVERSE COMMENTS OR FINDINGS as a matter of natural justice and procedural fairness :

1. The standards of fairness are not immutable;
2. They are not to be applied identically in every situation;
3. The requirements in any case depend, crucially, upon the particular facts and circumstances;
4. Fairness will very often require that a person who may be ADVERSELY AFFECTED by the decision will have an OPPORTUNITY to make representations on his own behalf, either before the decision is taken, with a view to producing a favourable result, or, after it is taken, with a view to procuring its modification, or both;
5. Fairness will often require that the person affected is INFORMED OF THE GIST of the case that he/she has to answer;
6. The more finality there is in the conclusions reached by an inquiry and reflected in its report and the greater the strength of their expression, the more that is required to be done to ENSURE THAT THE PROCESS IS FAIR;

Breach of the requirement of fairness is a serious matter, even if it is devoid of practical consequences.

Public authorities and public sector professionals are prima facie subject to the same general principleas as private persons. In KHAMBA v HARROW LBC (2025) EWHC 2803 (KB) Foster J holds, at para 40, that when a local authority is exercising statutory functions under the Mental Health Act 1983 there is NO ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY unless such a duty of care would be imposed under conventional principles of tort. Public authorities and public sector professionala are, in the same way as private individuals, generally not under any DUTY TO PREVENT the occurrence of harm to third parties. At para 55 she says that the mere foreseeability of harm is not a sufficient basis for a duty of care to arise.

On tortious liability, see MARPLES v SoS for EDUCATION (2025) EWHC 2794 (Ch) : (1) on misfeasance in public office, including targeted malice, at paras 158-177; and (2) on negligence, including assumption of responsibility and pure economic loss, at paras 178-210.