Adam Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership

Adam Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership

The Respondent owed no duty to the Appellant under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 because the risks of climbing the gate were obvious and willingly accepted, and the danger was not due to the state of the premises but the act of climbing. Alternatively, the Appellant was a trespasser when climbing the gate and no duty was owed under the 1984 Act as the Respondent had no knowledge of the burr and could not reasonably be expected to protect against the risk. Even if a duty was owed, the Respondent had adequate measures for ball retrieval. The cause of injury was the Appellant's own choice to climb the gate.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Adam Lillystone; Respondent/defendant: Bradgate Education Partnership
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Application to Admit Fresh Evidence
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Occupiers Liability Act 1957, Occupiers Liability Act 1984, Negligence, Duty of Care, Risk Assessment, Trespass, Contributory Negligence
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Occupiers Liability Act 1957 Occupiers Liability Act 1984 Negligence Duty of Care Risk Assessment +2 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 6 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adam Lillystone

Appellant/claimant

Bradgate Education Partnership

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal and Application to Admit Fresh Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent owed a duty of care to the Appellant under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 or 1984
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent breached its duty by failing to provide adequate ball retrieval measures or risk assessment
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant willingly accepted the risk under section 2(5) of the 1957 Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent owed no duty to the Appellant under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 because the risks of climbing the gate were obvious and willingly accepted, and the danger was not due to the state of the premises but the act of climbing. Alternatively, the Appellant was a trespasser when climbing the gate and no duty was owed under the 1984 Act as the Respondent had no knowledge of the burr and could not reasonably be expected to protect against the risk. Even if a duty was owed, the Respondent had adequate measures for ball retrieval. The cause of injury was the Appellant's own choice to climb the gate.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to admit fresh evidence dismissed
  • Judge's decision upheld for reasons given and alternative grounds