Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB) (26 August 2021)

Harrison v Intuitive Business Consultants Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2396 (QB) (26 August 2021)

The Defendants discharged their duty of care by providing marshals who gave general instructions to participants to set off from a seated position and by maintaining a reasonable landing surface. The evidence established that such instructions were given, even if not heard or acted upon by the Claimant. There was no breach of duty, and even if there had been, any such breach was not causative of the Claimant's injuries, as the fall occurred after the transition from the platform was complete. The claim therefore fails.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2396
Parties
Claimant: Margot Eraine Harrison; First Defendant/part 20 Claimant: Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (Successor in title to SR UK Ventures Limited [t/a 'Bear Grylls Survival Race']); Second Defendant: Big Bang Promotions International Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Beyond the Ultimate Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Breach of Duty, Causation, Risk Assessment, Sports and Leisure Injuries
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Breach of Duty Causation Risk Assessment Sports and Leisure Injuries

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 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margot Eraine Harrison

Claimant

Intuitive Business Consultants Limited (Successor in title to SR UK Ventures Limited [t/a 'Bear Grylls Survival Race'])

First Defendant/part 20 Claimant

Big Bang Promotions International Limited

Second Defendant

Beyond the Ultimate Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants breached their duty of care under s.2 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 by failing to provide adequate instruction and a safe landing surface for participants in the obstacle race.
  2. 2 Whether any such breach caused the Claimant's injuries.
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendants discharged their duty of care by providing marshals who gave general instructions to participants to set off from a seated position and by maintaining a reasonable landing surface. The evidence established that such instructions were given, even if not heard or acted upon by the Claimant. There was no breach of duty, and even if there had been, any such breach was not causative of the Claimant's injuries, as the fall occurred after the transition from the platform was complete. The claim therefore fails.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed