Wilkin -Shaw v Fuller & Ors [2012] EWHC 1777 (QB) (28 June 2012)

Wilkin -Shaw v Fuller & Ors [2012] EWHC 1777 (QB) (28 June 2012)

The defendants were not in breach of their duty of care. The team manager and assistants were competent, the training and risk assessment met the minimum required standards, and the group was adequately prepared for the activity. The decision to allow the group to proceed under remote supervision was reasonable. The failure of staff to meet the group at a checkpoint did not amount to negligence. The risk of drowning was not increased by any breach of duty, and the intervention of the scoutmaster did not break the chain of causation. The tragic accident was not caused by negligence of the defendants.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 1777 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Jennifer Wilkin-Shaw (Administratrix of the Estate of Charlotte Shaw (Deceased)); First Defendant: Christopher Fuller; Second Defendant: Kingsley School Bideford Enterprises Limited (formerly Edgehill College Enterprises Limited)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Causation, Breach of Duty, Remoteness of Damage, Novus Actus Interveniens, Compensation Act 2006, Outdoor Activities Liability
Tort Law Education Law Negligence Duty of Care Vicarious Liability Causation Breach of Duty Remoteness of Damage +3 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jennifer Wilkin-Shaw (Administratrix of the Estate of Charlotte Shaw (Deceased))

Claimant

Christopher Fuller

First Defendant

Kingsley School Bideford Enterprises Limited (formerly Edgehill College Enterprises Limited)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care to Charlotte Shaw during Ten Tors training
  2. 2 Whether the school ensured the competence of staff supervising the activity
  3. 3 Whether the intervention of a third party (scoutmaster) broke the chain of causation (novus actus interveniens)

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants were not in breach of their duty of care. The team manager and assistants were competent, the training and risk assessment met the minimum required standards, and the group was adequately prepared for the activity. The decision to allow the group to proceed under remote supervision was reasonable. The failure of staff to meet the group at a checkpoint did not amount to negligence. The risk of drowning was not increased by any breach of duty, and the intervention of the scoutmaster did not break the chain of causation. The tragic accident was not caused by negligence of the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed