Glaister & Ors v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council

Glaister & Ors v Appelby-In-Westmorland Town Council

The Town Council did not owe the claimants a duty of care to ensure the placement of public liability insurance for the acts of third parties at the Fair, nor to ensure the safe segregation and supervision of horses outside its land. Even if such a duty existed, the absence of insurance did not cause recoverable loss. The claim is a novel and unjustified extension of negligence liability, unsupported by authority or policy.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Geoffrey Glaister; Claimant/respondent: Geraldine Glaister; Claimant/respondent: Natalie Glaister; Defendant/appellant: Appleby-in-Westmorland Town Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Economic Loss, Public Events Liability, Insurance Requirements, Causation
Tort Law Negligence Public Liability Duty of Care Economic Loss Public Events Liability Insurance Requirements Causation

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey Glaister

Claimant/respondent

Geraldine Glaister

Claimant/respondent

Natalie Glaister

Claimant/respondent

Appleby-in-Westmorland Town Council

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Town Council owed a duty of care to visitors to ensure public liability insurance was in place for negligent acts or omissions by participants in the Fair
  2. 2 Whether the absence of such insurance caused loss to the claimants
  3. 3 Whether it is fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty on the Town Council

Ratio Decidendi

The Town Council did not owe the claimants a duty of care to ensure the placement of public liability insurance for the acts of third parties at the Fair, nor to ensure the safe segregation and supervision of horses outside its land. Even if such a duty existed, the absence of insurance did not cause recoverable loss. The claim is a novel and unjustified extension of negligence liability, unsupported by authority or policy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Town Council; claim by the Glaisters dismissed