Hoyle v Hampshire County Council & Ors [2022] EWHC 934 (QB) (19 April 2022)

Hoyle v Hampshire County Council & Ors [2022] EWHC 934 (QB) (19 April 2022)

There was no visible or obvious defect in tree 572 at the time of the relevant inspections that would have put a competent arboricultural inspector on notice of a risk of imminent failure. The inspections and risk assessments conducted by the defendants met or exceeded the applicable standard of care. No breach of duty was established, and even if there had been a breach, causation was not proven as the failure was due to unforeseeable extreme weather conditions. Accordingly, the claim fails against all defendants.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 934 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Michael Hoyle (Administrator of the Estate of Mr David Hoyle); First Defendant: Hampshire County Council; Third Defendant: Simon P Holmes Limited (T/A Tree Surveys); Fourth Defendant: Mr Ed Power
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Fatal Accident/negligence / Trial on Liability Only
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Causation, Highway Authority Liability, Tree Management, Standard of Care, Inspection Regimes
Tort Law Personal Injury Public Authority Liability Negligence Duty of Care Causation Highway Authority Liability Tree Management +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Michael Hoyle (Administrator of the Estate of Mr David Hoyle)

Claimant

Hampshire County Council

First Defendant

Simon P Holmes Limited (T/A Tree Surveys)

Third Defendant

Mr Ed Power

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fatal Accident/negligence / Trial on Liability Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hampshire County Council owed and breached a duty of care to the deceased under common law and/or section 41 Highways Act 1980;
  2. 2 Whether Simon P Holmes Limited and Mr Ed Power owed and breached a duty of care to the deceased;
  3. 3 Whether any breach of duty was causative of the accident and death;

Ratio Decidendi

There was no visible or obvious defect in tree 572 at the time of the relevant inspections that would have put a competent arboricultural inspector on notice of a risk of imminent failure. The inspections and risk assessments conducted by the defendants met or exceeded the applicable standard of care. No breach of duty was established, and even if there had been a breach, causation was not proven as the failure was due to unforeseeable extreme weather conditions. Accordingly, the claim fails against all defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against all defendants dismissed
  • No liability established against any defendant