Hetherington v Fell & Anor [2025] EWHC 1487 (KB) (16 June 2025)

Hetherington v Fell & Anor [2025] EWHC 1487 (KB) (16 June 2025)

The Club owed a duty of care to participants to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and implement reasonable mitigation measures. The Club complied with CTT guidance, placed additional signage at the junction, and conducted on-the-day assessments. The risk assessment was not negligent, and the accident was caused solely by Mr Fell's failure to keep a proper lookout and comply with the Highway Code. No breach by the Club was established, and no causal link between any alleged deficiency and the accident was proven. The claim for contribution/indemnity fails.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1487 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Benjamin Hetherington (by his father and litigation friend Gary Hetherington); 1st Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Raymond Fell; 2nd Defendant and Part 20 Defendant: Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Part 20 Contribution/indemnity Claim (personal Injury Negligence) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Part 20 claim dismissed. Judgment for the Club.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Vicarious Liability, Contribution and Indemnity, Organiser Liability, Highway Code, Standard of Care
Tort Law Personal Injury Sports Law Negligence Duty of Care Risk Assessment Vicarious Liability Contribution and Indemnity +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Hetherington (by his father and litigation friend Gary Hetherington)

Claimant

Raymond Fell

1st Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club

2nd Defendant and Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 20 Contribution/indemnity Claim (personal Injury Negligence) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Club owe a duty of care to the Claimant to risk assess the time trial course?
  2. 2 If so, what was the scope and standard of that duty?
  3. 3 Did the Club breach the requisite standard of care?

Ratio Decidendi

The Club owed a duty of care to participants to conduct a suitable and sufficient risk assessment and implement reasonable mitigation measures. The Club complied with CTT guidance, placed additional signage at the junction, and conducted on-the-day assessments. The risk assessment was not negligent, and the accident was caused solely by Mr Fell's failure to keep a proper lookout and comply with the Highway Code. No breach by the Club was established, and no causal link between any alleged deficiency and the accident was proven. The claim for contribution/indemnity fails.

Court Disposition

Part 20 claim dismissed. Judgment for the Club.

Orders

  • No order for contribution or indemnity against the Club.
  • Costs to be determined separately.