Foggoa v J Murphy & Sons Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1246 (KB) (20 May 2025)

Foggoa v J Murphy & Sons Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 1246 (KB) (20 May 2025)

The Respondents did not breach their duty of care as the safety measures implemented were compliant with the statutory Code and industry standards, and there was no evidence that further measures were reasonably required. The fresh evidence regarding the works licence and footway closure did not materially affect the outcome. The trial judge's interpretation of the Code and findings on breach and causation were not wrong. No public nuisance was established.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1246 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Sheila Foggoa (Executrix of the Estate of Barry Foggoa Deceased); First Respondent/defendant: J Murphy & Sons Limited; Second Respondent/defendant: Applebridge Construction Limited; Third Respondent/defendant: Butlers Construction N. E. Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (combined With Applications for Permission to Appeal, to Amend Grounds, and to Adduce Fresh Evidence) / Judgment on Permission to Appeal, Application to Amend, and Substantive Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Public Nuisance, Statutory Duty, Interpretation of Statutory Codes, Causation, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Tort Law Civil Procedure Health and Safety Negligence Public Nuisance Statutory Duty Interpretation of Statutory Codes Causation +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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sheila Foggoa (Executrix of the Estate of Barry Foggoa Deceased)

Appellant/claimant

J Murphy & Sons Limited

First Respondent/defendant

Applebridge Construction Limited

Second Respondent/defendant

Butlers Construction N. E. Limited

Third Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (combined With Applications for Permission to Appeal, to Amend Grounds, and to Adduce Fresh Evidence) / Judgment on Permission to Appeal, Application to Amend, and Substantive Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents breached their duty of care in negligence by failing to provide adequate barriers and safety measures at street works under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 and the relevant Code of Practice; whether the trial judge erred in interpreting the Code and the standard of care; whether fresh evidence regarding the works licence and footway closure should be admitted on appeal; whether causation was established; whether there was a public nuisance.

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents did not breach their duty of care as the safety measures implemented were compliant with the statutory Code and industry standards, and there was no evidence that further measures were reasonably required. The fresh evidence regarding the works licence and footway closure did not materially affect the outcome. The trial judge's interpretation of the Code and findings on breach and causation were not wrong. No public nuisance was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence and amend grounds of appeal dismissed
  • Application for permission to appeal allowed