Sheila Foggoa v Murphy & Sons Limited

Sheila Foggoa v Murphy & Sons Limited

The Respondents did not breach their duty of care as the barriers and board used were compliant with the Code and industry standards; the footway was reasonably safe; fresh evidence regarding the licence application did not materially affect the outcome; causation was not established as the precautions taken were reasonable; public nuisance claim was properly dismissed.

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 / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Public Nuisance, Statutory Interpretation, Duty of Care, Causation, Admission of Fresh Evidence
Tort Civil Procedure Negligence Public Nuisance Statutory Interpretation Duty of Care Causation Admission of Fresh Evidence

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
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 / Permission to Appeal and Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents breached their duty of care under common law and statutory guidance (Code) in relation to guarding a trench on a public footway
  2. 2 Whether the barriers and board used complied with the Code and were adequate to prevent foreseeable injury
  3. 3 Whether the Judge correctly interpreted the Code and applied the standard of care

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondents did not breach their duty of care as the barriers and board used were compliant with the Code and industry standards; the footway was reasonably safe; fresh evidence regarding the licence application did not materially affect the outcome; causation was not established as the precautions taken were reasonable; public nuisance claim was properly dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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