Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 (KB) (19 December 2025)

Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership [2025] EWHC 3341 (KB) (19 December 2025)

The Respondent owed no duty to the Appellant under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 because the risk arose from the Appellant's voluntary act of climbing the locked gate, which was an obvious risk willingly accepted under section 2(5). The premises were not dangerous in their state, and the Respondent could not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 3341 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Adam Lillystone; Respondent/defendant: Bradgate Education Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2025
Procedural Posture
Appeal (personal Injury, Occupiers' Liability) / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957, Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, Negligence, Duty of Care, Trespass, Volenti Non Fit Injuria, Risk Assessment, Admission of Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 Negligence Duty of Care Trespass +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Lillystone

Appellant/claimant

Bradgate Education Partnership

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (personal Injury, Occupiers' Liability) / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent owed a duty of care to the Appellant under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 or 1984 for injuries sustained while climbing a locked gate to retrieve a football
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant willingly accepted the risk under section 2(5) of the 1957 Act
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent breached any duty by failing to provide a safe means of ball retrieval or adequate warnings

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent owed no duty to the Appellant under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 because the risk arose from the Appellant's voluntary act of climbing the locked gate, which was an obvious risk willingly accepted under section 2(5). The premises were not dangerous in their state, and the Respondent could not reasonably have known of the burr. Alternatively, the Appellant was a trespasser when climbing the gate, and no duty arose under the 1984 Act because the Respondent was not aware of the danger and the risk was not one against which protection was reasonably expected. The application to admit fresh evidence was refused as it did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to admit fresh evidence refused
  • County Court order dismissing claim for damages for personal injury and losses upheld