Mathewson v Crump & Anor [2020] EWHC 3167 (QB) (20 November 2020)

Mathewson v Crump & Anor [2020] EWHC 3167 (QB) (20 November 2020)

Neither Defendant was an occupier of the premises at the time of the accident; CK2 Construction Limited had sole control and responsibility. Even if the Defendants were occupiers, there was no breach of duty as the Claimant, an experienced tradesman, was or should have been aware of the obvious risks of a building site, and adequate warnings were given. No liability attaches to the Defendants for the Claimant's injuries.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3167
Parties
Claimant: Ian Mathewson; First Defendant: Charlotte Crump; Second Defendant: Kristopher Crump
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability and Negligence / High Court Trial Judgment on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Negligence, Duty of Care, Control of Premises, Breach of Duty, Causation, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Negligence Duty of Care Control of Premises Breach of Duty 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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Mathewson

Claimant

Charlotte Crump

First Defendant

Kristopher Crump

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability and Negligence / High Court Trial Judgment on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants were 'occupiers' under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 at the time of the accident
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Claimant
  3. 3 Whether there was a breach of duty by the Defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Neither Defendant was an occupier of the premises at the time of the accident; CK2 Construction Limited had sole control and responsibility. Even if the Defendants were occupiers, there was no breach of duty as the Claimant, an experienced tradesman, was or should have been aware of the obvious risks of a building site, and adequate warnings were given. No liability attaches to the Defendants for the Claimant's injuries.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against both Defendants dismissed
  • No liability found under Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or in negligence