The Omissions Doctrine after <i>Tindall</i> v <i>Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police</i>

In tort law, liability is generally not imposed for failing to confer a benefit on another person. This is commonly referred to as the omissions doctrine. In Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police , the UK Supreme Court elucidated the scope of this doctrine. Significantly, it endorsed for the first time the interference principle which provides that a duty of care arises where it is reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's interference in a situation might impede alternative means of protecting the claimant from harm. It is argued that the endorsement of this principle should be welcomed, although the court's references to the creation of unreasonable risks at the duty stage of the negligence analysis were unnecessary. It is also suggested that whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the defendant's conduct would interfere with alternative means of protecting the claimant from harm was a factual issue that arguably should not have been determined without a full trial. The note further explores the boundaries of the interference principle and the circumstances which can give rise to a duty of care based on the assumption of responsibility and status doctrines.