Cenet (nee McGlennon) v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [2008] EWHC 1407 (QB) (26 June 2008)

Cenet (nee McGlennon) v Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council [2008] EWHC 1407 (QB) (26 June 2008)

The trial judge erred by applying pavement standards to a defect that was part of the carriageway, placing undue emphasis on pedestrian use, and finding the defect dangerous when, applying the correct standard, it was not a real source of danger. The appeal was allowed on this basis.

Citation
[2008] EWHC 1407 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Jeanette Cenet (nee McGlennon); Defendant/applicant: Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Highway Tripping Accident, Breach of Statutory Duty, Section 41 Highways Act 1980, Section 58 Highways Act 1980, Dangerousness of Highway Defects, Credibility of Witnesses, Standard of Maintenance for Highways
Tort Law Personal Injury Local Government Law Highway Tripping Accident Breach of Statutory Duty Section 41 Highways Act 1980 Section 58 Highways Act 1980 Dangerousness of Highway Defects +2 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanette Cenet (nee McGlennon)

Claimant/respondent

Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council

Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in finding the claimant suffered an accident as alleged
  2. 2 Whether the defect constituted a dangerous defect under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1980
  3. 3 Whether the defendant had a statutory defence under Section 58 of the Highways Act 1980

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge erred by applying pavement standards to a defect that was part of the carriageway, placing undue emphasis on pedestrian use, and finding the defect dangerous when, applying the correct standard, it was not a real source of danger. The appeal was allowed on this basis.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Appeal allowed