Shine v Tower Hamlets [2006] EWCA Civ 852 (09 June 2006)

Shine v Tower Hamlets [2006] EWCA Civ 852 (09 June 2006)

The local authority was not liable under statutory duty (Highways Act 1980) because the defect related to street furniture, not highway maintenance, but was liable in negligence as it was foreseeable that children would leap-frog bollards and the authority failed to remedy a known hazard. No contributory negligence was found due to the claimant's age and the circumstances.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 852
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Matthew Shine (by his father and litigation friend); Defendant/respondent: London Borough of Tower Hamlets
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Romford County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Highway Maintenance, Personal Injury, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Local Government Law Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Highway Maintenance 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Shine (by his father and litigation friend)

Claimant/appellant

London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Romford County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority was liable for injuries caused by an insecure bollard under statutory duty or negligence
  2. 2 Whether section 41 or section 66 of the Highways Act 1980 imposed liability
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority was not liable under statutory duty (Highways Act 1980) because the defect related to street furniture, not highway maintenance, but was liable in negligence as it was foreseeable that children would leap-frog bollards and the authority failed to remedy a known hazard. No contributory negligence was found due to the claimant's age and the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judgment of Romford County Court upheld
  • No finding of contributory negligence against claimant