Roe v Sheffield City Council & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1 (17 January 2003)

Roe v Sheffield City Council & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1 (17 January 2003)

Sections 25 and 28 of the Tramways Act 1870 (as incorporated by the 1988 Act) do create a private law cause of action for road users. Section 25 does not impose an absolute duty for rails to be perfectly flush with the road surface; some tolerance is permitted, considering technical feasibility and safety. Section 28 imposes an absolute duty to maintain the road between and adjacent to the rails to a standard of safety, not perfection. Section 15 of the 1988 Act means the tramway company, not the highway authority, is responsible for maintenance of the altered part of the highway for 12 months after completion. The judge was wrong to find breach of section 25 on the basis of its absolute...

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1
Parties
Claimant/respondent: William Roe (a Patient who sues by his Next Friend Miss Julie Jones); 1st Defendant/respondent: Sheffield City Council; 2nd Defendant/appellant: South Yorkshire Light Rail Limited; 3rd Defendant: South Yorkshire Supertram Limited; 4th Defendant: Balfour Beatty Power Construction Limited; 5th Defendant: Turner and Townsend Project Management Limited; 6th Defendant: Kennedy and Donkin Transportation Limited; 7th Defendant: The Health and Safety Executive (originally sued as Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim (damages for Personal Injuries) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for further findings on breach and liability under the correct legal standards.
Legal Topics
Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence, Nuisance, Highway Maintenance Liability, Tramways Act 1870, South Yorkshire Light Rail Transit Act 1988, Highways Act 1980, Private Law Cause of Action Under Statute
Tort Law Statutory Interpretation Personal Injury Administrative Law Breach of Statutory Duty Negligence Nuisance Highway Maintenance Liability +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Roe (a Patient who sues by his Next Friend Miss Julie Jones)

Claimant/respondent

Sheffield City Council

1st Defendant/respondent

South Yorkshire Light Rail Limited

2nd Defendant/appellant

South Yorkshire Supertram Limited

3rd Defendant

Balfour Beatty Power Construction Limited

4th Defendant

Turner and Townsend Project Management Limited

5th Defendant

Kennedy and Donkin Transportation Limited

6th Defendant

The Health and Safety Executive (originally sued as Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate)

7th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim (damages for Personal Injuries) / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 25 and/or section 28 of the Tramways Act 1870 (as incorporated by the 1988 Act) create a private law cause of action for road users?
  2. 2 What is the standard imposed by 'on a level with the surface of the road' in section 25?
  3. 3 What is the scope of the tramway company's duty under section 28?

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 25 and 28 of the Tramways Act 1870 (as incorporated by the 1988 Act) do create a private law cause of action for road users. Section 25 does not impose an absolute duty for rails to be perfectly flush with the road surface; some tolerance is permitted, considering technical feasibility and safety. Section 28 imposes an absolute duty to maintain the road between and adjacent to the rails to a standard of safety, not perfection. Section 15 of the 1988 Act means the tramway company, not the highway authority, is responsible for maintenance of the altered part of the highway for 12 months after completion. The judge was wrong to find breach of section 25 on the basis of its absolute...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; matter remitted for further findings on breach and liability under the correct legal standards.

Orders

  • The finding of breach of section 25 of the 1870 Act is set aside; the standard is not absolute but allows for reasonable tolerance.
  • The question of breach under section 28 of the 1870 Act and liability under section 41 of the 1980 Act is remitted for further findings, including possible section 58 defence by the highway authority.