Liam Swan v The Estate of Drew Docherty (Deceased) & Anor

Liam Swan v The Estate of Drew Docherty (Deceased) & Anor

The Fourth Party's driver, Mr Heal, did not owe a duty of care to protect against the reckless and extraordinary conduct of Mr Docherty in driving across the junction at speed without stopping. Even if a duty was owed, Mr Heal's speed was not negligent in the circumstances, and any momentary excess over the speed limit was not causative. Therefore, the claim for contribution fails.

Parties
Claimant: Liam Swan (by Joanne Swan, litigation friend); First Defendant: The Estate of Drew Docherty (Deceased); Second Defendant: First Central Underwriting Limited; Fourth Party: Glendinning Brothers
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Contribution Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Judgment After Trial on Liability for Contribution
Outcome
Claim for contribution dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Vicarious Liability, Contribution Between Tortfeasors, Road Traffic Accidents, Standard of Care, Causation
Tort Insurance Law Civil Procedure Negligence Vicarious Liability Contribution Between Tortfeasors Road Traffic Accidents Standard of Care +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liam Swan (by Joanne Swan, litigation friend)

Claimant

The Estate of Drew Docherty (Deceased)

First Defendant

First Central Underwriting Limited

Second Defendant

Glendinning Brothers

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Contribution Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Judgment After Trial on Liability for Contribution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Fourth Party (Glendinning Brothers, via their driver Craig Heal) negligent in a manner causative of the accident?
  2. 2 Did the Fourth Party owe a duty of care to protect against the reckless conduct of the First Defendant?
  3. 3 Was the speed of the Fourth Party's driver excessive and negligent in the circumstances?

Ratio Decidendi

The Fourth Party's driver, Mr Heal, did not owe a duty of care to protect against the reckless and extraordinary conduct of Mr Docherty in driving across the junction at speed without stopping. Even if a duty was owed, Mr Heal's speed was not negligent in the circumstances, and any momentary excess over the speed limit was not causative. Therefore, the claim for contribution fails.

Court Disposition

Claim for contribution dismissed

Orders

  • No order for contribution against the Fourth Party
  • No further orders as to liability