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 Mr Lear. Although a duty of care was owed under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and at common law, the evidence did not establish that the parking arrangements or directions given by WH Security created an actionable obstruction or that the accident was a foreseeable consequence of any breach. Hickstead had reasonably entrusted parking management to a competent contractor (WH) and took reasonable steps to monitor their work. The accident was caused by an unforeseeable act of a third party manually raising the ramp, which was not a risk that either defendant was required to guard against. Accordingly,...

Citation
[2016] EWHC 528 (QB)
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/negligence / Trial on Preliminary Issue of Liability
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Negligence, Independent Contractor Defence, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Remoteness, Contributory Negligence, Volenti Non Fit Injuria
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Negligence Independent Contractor Defence Duty of Care Breach of Duty +4 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 4 Authorities cited 11 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/negligence / Trial on Preliminary Issue of Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hickstead Ltd and/or W. H. Security Ltd owed a relevant duty of care to Mr Lear 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 suffered was too remote, resulted from a novus actus interveniens, or was subject to the defence of volenti non fit injuria

Ratio Decidendi

Neither Hickstead Ltd nor W. H. Security Ltd breached any relevant duty of care owed to Mr Lear. Although a duty of care was owed under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 and at common law, the evidence did not establish that the parking arrangements or directions given by WH Security created an actionable obstruction or that the accident was a foreseeable consequence of any breach. Hickstead had reasonably entrusted parking management to a competent contractor (WH) and took reasonable steps to monitor their work. The accident was caused by an unforeseeable act of a third party manually raising the ramp, which was not a risk that either defendant was required to guard against. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim against both defendants dismissed
  • No order as to damages or further relief