Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ors

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ors

The defendants were not in breach of their duty of care. The risk of serious injury from the pool game was very small, the activity was appropriate for fit service personnel, and a ban on head-first entry was not required to meet the standard of reasonable care. The inadequacy of the risk assessments did not, in itself, establish liability as the game was not unreasonably dangerous.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Lee Uren; First Defendant: Corporate Leisure (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Ministry of Defence; Third Defendant: David Lionel Pratt and Others, Syndicate 2525
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Employer's Liability, Occupier's Liability, Risk Assessment, Duty of Care, Recreational Injury, Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Employer's Liability Occupier's Liability Risk Assessment Duty of Care Recreational Injury +1 more

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

Parties

Robert Lee Uren

Claimant

Corporate Leisure (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Ministry of Defence

Second Defendant

David Lionel Pratt and Others, Syndicate 2525

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care to the claimant in organising and supervising the pool game
  2. 2 Whether the risk assessments conducted were adequate and whether their inadequacy constituted a breach of duty
  3. 3 Whether the failure to prohibit head-first entry into the pool rendered the activity unsafe

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not in breach of their duty of care. The risk of serious injury from the pool game was very small, the activity was appropriate for fit service personnel, and a ban on head-first entry was not required to meet the standard of reasonable care. The inadequacy of the risk assessments did not, in itself, establish liability as the game was not unreasonably dangerous.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed