Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd

Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Ltd

Folkestone Properties did not owe a duty of care to Mr Donoghue under section 1(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 at the time of the accident because they had no reasonable grounds to believe that anyone would be swimming from the slipway in the middle of the night in mid-winter; therefore, the statutory criteria for the existence of a duty were not satisfied and the claim must fail.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: John Simon Donoghue; Defendant/appellant: Folkestone Properties Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duty of Care to Trespassers, Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, Scope of Duty, Personal Injury, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Occupiers’ Liability Duty of Care to Trespassers Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 Scope of Duty Personal Injury Contributory Negligence

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Simon Donoghue

Claimant/respondent

Folkestone Properties Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen’s Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupier owed a duty of care to a trespasser under section 1(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 at the time and circumstances of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the duty of care extends to risks at times when the occupier had no reasonable grounds to believe trespassers would be present
  3. 3 Whether the standard of care and existence of duty should be assessed by reference to the individual claimant or a class of persons

Ratio Decidendi

Folkestone Properties did not owe a duty of care to Mr Donoghue under section 1(3) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 at the time of the accident because they had no reasonable grounds to believe that anyone would be swimming from the slipway in the middle of the night in mid-winter; therefore, the statutory criteria for the existence of a duty were not satisfied and the claim must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim dismissed

Orders

  • Order of His Honour Judge Bowers dated 2 September 2002 set aside
  • Claimant’s claim dismissed and judgment entered for the Defendant