Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 46 (QB) (22 January 2010)

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ors [2010] EWHC 46 (QB) (22 January 2010)

Neither defendant breached their duty of care; the risk of serious injury was very small and did not require prohibition of head first entry; risk assessments, though flawed, did not render the activity unsafe; the balance between risk and benefit justified allowing the game as played.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 46 (QB)
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
Negligence, Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Employer's Liability, Recreational Injury, Statutory Duty
Tort Law Personal Injury Health and Safety Negligence Duty of Care Risk Assessment Employer's Liability 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 4
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 by the defendants were adequate
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were in breach of statutory duties under PUWER 1998 and MHSWR 1999

Ratio Decidendi

Neither defendant breached their duty of care; the risk of serious injury was very small and did not require prohibition of head first entry; risk assessments, though flawed, did not render the activity unsafe; the balance between risk and benefit justified allowing the game as played.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed