Knight v Rentokil Initial Facilities Services

Knight v Rentokil Initial Facilities Services

The appellant’s cleaning system, though generally good, was not sufficiently systematic or frequent to ensure reasonable safety for the large number of distracted users in the terminal. The judge’s findings on the inadequacy of the system and the application of the causation test were open to her on the evidence. There was no prospect of success on appeal.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Knight; Second Defendant/appellant: Rentokil Initial Facilities Services
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Standard of Care, Costs Orders
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Duty of Care Personal Injury Standard of Care Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Knight

Claimant/respondent

Rentokil Initial Facilities Services

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal (court of Appeal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cleaning system operated by the appellant met the duty of care owed to the claimant under common law and the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge imposed too high a standard of care on the appellant
  3. 3 Whether the causation test in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd was properly applied

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant’s cleaning system, though generally good, was not sufficiently systematic or frequent to ensure reasonable safety for the large number of distracted users in the terminal. The judge’s findings on the inadequacy of the system and the application of the causation test were open to her on the evidence. There was no prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal refused
  • Costs order against the appellant (second defendant) upheld