Maloney v Torfaen County Borough Council

Maloney v Torfaen County Borough Council

The appellant was not a visitor within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, as there was no express or implied permission to use the grass bank as a shortcut. The respondents did not owe a duty under the 1984 Act because they did not have actual or constructive knowledge that people used the embankment as a shortcut, nor was the risk sufficiently established by prior incidents. There was no negligent design established. Thus, no liability attached to the respondents.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Maloney; Defendants/respondents: Torfaen County Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability Only
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Occupiers Liability Act 1984, Contributory Negligence, Negligent Design
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 Contributory Negligence Negligent Design

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maloney

Claimant/appellant

Torfaen County Borough Council

Defendants/respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents owed the appellant a duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or 1984
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was a visitor or trespasser
  3. 3 Whether the retaining wall was negligently designed

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not a visitor within the meaning of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957, as there was no express or implied permission to use the grass bank as a shortcut. The respondents did not owe a duty under the 1984 Act because they did not have actual or constructive knowledge that people used the embankment as a shortcut, nor was the risk sufficiently established by prior incidents. There was no negligent design established. Thus, no liability attached to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Detailed assessment of appellant's legally aided costs