MR MICHAEL HOYLE v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

MR MICHAEL HOYLE v HAMPSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL

The evidence did not establish that tree 572 was structurally defective or posed a visible risk at the time of inspection; inspections by HCC and contracted arboriculturists were competent and in accordance with guidance; the accident was caused by a combination of adverse weather and environmental factors, not negligence or breach of duty by any defendant.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Michael Hoyle; First Defendant: Hampshire County Council; Third Defendant: Simon P Holmes Limited (T/A Tree Surveys); Fourth Defendant: Mr Ed Power
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Fatal Accidents Act Claim / Liability Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Tree Inspection, Highways Act, Professional Negligence, Causation
Tort Negligence Public Authority Liability Duty of Care Tree Inspection Highways Act Professional Negligence 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 4 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Michael Hoyle

Claimant

Hampshire County Council

First Defendant

Simon P Holmes Limited (T/A Tree Surveys)

Third Defendant

Mr Ed Power

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Fatal Accidents Act Claim / Liability Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was tree 572 defective or at risk of failure and was this visible to inspectors?
  2. 2 Did Hampshire County Council breach its duty of care or statutory duty under section 41 Highways Act?
  3. 3 Did Simon P Holmes Ltd and Mr Ed Power owe a duty of care to the claimant and breach it?

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that tree 572 was structurally defective or posed a visible risk at the time of inspection; inspections by HCC and contracted arboriculturists were competent and in accordance with guidance; the accident was caused by a combination of adverse weather and environmental factors, not negligence or breach of duty by any defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed