[1] The House of Lords unanimously struck out the claim as disclosing no justiciable cause of action, upholding the decision of the judge at first instance and of the Court of Appeal.

In her claim, Ms Hill's mother pointed to extensive failings on the part of West Yorkshire Police in relation to its investigation of the murders, and in particular officers' fixation upon a message purportedly from the killer which was later shown to be a hoax.

Because the application was made to strike out on the basis that there was no cause of action, the courts proceeded on the hypothetical assumption that these criticisms were all true, but without making any findings of act in that regard.

A different view from Tofaris and Steel where the duty to prevent harm will only occur when the defendants status creates the obligation to protect the claimant.

He noted that the two cases were similar, but held that no duty of care arose between West Yorkshire Police and Ms Hill.

He held: It is plain that vital characteristics which were present in the Dorset Yacht case and which led to the imposition of liability are here lacking.

But in my opinion there is another reason why an action for damages in negligence should not lie against the police in circumstances such as those of the present case, and that is public policy.

In his characteristic fashion, Lord Templeman opened with an emotional statement: "The appellant, Mrs. Hill, is tormented with the unshakeable belief that her daughter would be alive today if the respondent the West Yorkshire police force had been more efficient.

The court held that Hill did not confer generally immunity upon the police, only that a duty of care would not arise without special circumstances.