Buyukardicli v Hammerson UK Properties Plc & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 683 (1 May 2002)

Buyukardicli v Hammerson UK Properties Plc & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 683 (1 May 2002)

The defendants, as joint occupiers, breached their duty of care by failing to address a foreseeable hazard (the lip between compacted earth and kerbstone) in an area used by visitors. The claimant was contributorily negligent for not keeping a proper lookout, but not to the extent of 100%. The trial judge's findings of fact and allocation of liability were justified and not open to appellate interference.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 683
Parties
Claimant (respondent): Krystyna Buyukardicli; First Defendant (appellant): Hammerson UK Properties PLC; Second Defendant: Standard Life Assurance Company (trading as Brent Cross Shopping Centre); Third Defendant: AMEC Civil Engineering Limited PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Contributory Negligence, Duty of Care, Premises Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Contributory Negligence Duty of Care Premises Liability

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Krystyna Buyukardicli

Claimant (respondent)

Hammerson UK Properties PLC

First Defendant (appellant)

Standard Life Assurance Company (trading as Brent Cross Shopping Centre)

Second Defendant

AMEC Civil Engineering Limited PLC

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants breached their duty of care under the Occupiers' Liability Act
  2. 2 Whether the claimant was contributorily negligent and to what extent
  3. 3 Whether the physical hazard constituted a foreseeable risk to visitors

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants, as joint occupiers, breached their duty of care by failing to address a foreseeable hazard (the lip between compacted earth and kerbstone) in an area used by visitors. The claimant was contributorily negligent for not keeping a proper lookout, but not to the extent of 100%. The trial judge's findings of fact and allocation of liability were justified and not open to appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs to be assessed if not agreed