Lear v Hickstead Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 528 (QB) (14 March 2016)

Lear v Hickstead Ltd & Anor [2016] EWHC 528 (QB) (14 March 2016)

Neither Hickstead Ltd nor W. H. Security Ltd breached any relevant duty of care owed to the claimant. The parking arrangements did not create an actionable obstruction or danger, and the accident was caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party manually raising the ramp, which was not a risk the defendants were required to guard against. Hickstead had discharged any duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 by engaging a competent independent contractor and taking reasonable steps to monitor the work. There was no breach at common law as the specific risk was not reasonably foreseeable.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 528
Parties
Claimant: Mr Brian James Lear; First Defendant: Hickstead Limited; Second Defendant: W. H. Security Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Preliminary Issue on Liability / High Court Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Negligence, Independent Contractor Defence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Remoteness, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Occupiers' Liability Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Negligence Independent Contractor Defence Duty of Care Breach of Duty +3 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Brian James Lear

Claimant

Hickstead Limited

First Defendant

W. H. Security Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Preliminary Issue on Liability / High Court Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hickstead Ltd and/or W. H. Security Ltd owed a duty of care to the claimant under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and/or at common law
  2. 2 Whether there was a breach of any such duty by either defendant
  3. 3 Whether the damage was too remote, there was a novus actus interveniens, or volenti non fit injuria applied

Ratio Decidendi

Neither Hickstead Ltd nor W. H. Security Ltd breached any relevant duty of care owed to the claimant. The parking arrangements did not create an actionable obstruction or danger, and the accident was caused by the unforeseeable act of a third party manually raising the ramp, which was not a risk the defendants were required to guard against. Hickstead had discharged any duty under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 by engaging a competent independent contractor and taking reasonable steps to monitor the work. There was no breach at common law as the specific risk was not reasonably foreseeable.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim for liability against both defendants dismissed
  • No order as to damages or contributory negligence required