Murphy v Milton Keynes Parks Trust Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2917 (QB) (01 November 2021)

Murphy v Milton Keynes Parks Trust Ltd & Anor [2021] EWHC 2917 (QB) (01 November 2021)

The depression where the claimant fell was not sufficiently significant (maximum 27mm depth, minimum 500mm diameter) to constitute an actionable defect under either occupiers' liability or highways law. The area was reasonably safe for its intended use, and neither defendant breached their duty of care. The absence of previous accidents and the long-standing nature of the depression further supported the conclusion that the defect was not actionable.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2917 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Oonagh Murphy; First Defendant: Milton Keynes Parks Trust Ltd; Second Defendant: Milton Keynes Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Liability Trial / Judgment After Trial on Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Highways Maintenance, Standard of Care, Actionable Defect, Public Authority Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Highways Maintenance Standard of Care Actionable Defect Public Authority 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oonagh Murphy

Claimant

Milton Keynes Parks Trust Ltd

First Defendant

Milton Keynes Council

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Liability Trial / Judgment After Trial on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the depression in the forecourt/pavement constituted an actionable defect under occupiers' liability and highways law
  2. 2 Whether either defendant breached their duty of care to the claimant resulting in her fall and injury

Ratio Decidendi

The depression where the claimant fell was not sufficiently significant (maximum 27mm depth, minimum 500mm diameter) to constitute an actionable defect under either occupiers' liability or highways law. The area was reasonably safe for its intended use, and neither defendant breached their duty of care. The absence of previous accidents and the long-standing nature of the depression further supported the conclusion that the defect was not actionable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed