Clark v London Borough of Havering & Anor [2007] EWHC 3427 (QB) (18 October 2007)

Clark v London Borough of Havering & Anor [2007] EWHC 3427 (QB) (18 October 2007)

The local authority, as highway authority, did not owe a common law duty of care to cut the grass on the verge, nor did its statutory duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 extend to grass cutting in this case. The only relevant defect was the uncovered stopcock, not the length of the grass. The authority's system of inspection and repair was reasonable, and the judge below erred in law by imposing an additional duty to mow grass. The section 58 defence was established and the claim against the appellant should be dismissed.

Citation
[2007] EWHC 3427
Parties
Claimant: Clark; First Defendant/appellant: London Borough of Havering; Second Defendant/respondent: Another (Second Defendant)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2007
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision on Liability
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim against the appellant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Highway Authority Liability, Statutory Duty Under Highways Act 1980, Common Law Negligence, Section 41 and Section 58 Defences, Assumption of Responsibility
Tort Law Public Law Highway Authority Liability Statutory Duty Under Highways Act 1980 Common Law Negligence Section 41 and Section 58 Defences Assumption of Responsibility

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clark

Claimant

London Borough of Havering

First Defendant/appellant

Another (Second Defendant)

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority owed a common law duty of care to cut grass on the verge as highway authority
  2. 2 Whether the local authority breached its statutory duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the local authority could rely on the statutory defence under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority, as highway authority, did not owe a common law duty of care to cut the grass on the verge, nor did its statutory duty under section 41 of the Highways Act 1980 extend to grass cutting in this case. The only relevant defect was the uncovered stopcock, not the length of the grass. The authority's system of inspection and repair was reasonable, and the judge below erred in law by imposing an additional duty to mow grass. The section 58 defence was established and the claim against the appellant should be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim against the appellant dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for the appellant; claim against the London Borough of Havering dismissed.
  • Claimant's judgment and costs against the second defendant remain unaffected.