Deane v Barker & Ors [2022] EWHC 1523 (QB) (17 June 2022)

Deane v Barker & Ors [2022] EWHC 1523 (QB) (17 June 2022)

The works carried out at the villa in 2017 were 'refurbishment' and not 'maintenance' as defined in Annex III of the CTE, triggering the application of the CTE. The villa's staircase was not for 'restricted use' as defined in Annex A to the SUA, as it was accessible to more than 10 non-habitual users. The CTE therefore applied to the works and the more stringent safety standards for general use staircases were engaged.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 1523
Parties
Claimant: Lydia Deane; First Defendant: Paul James Barker; Second Defendant: Anita Jayne Barker, née Hamilton; Third Defendant: Reale Seguros Generales SA; Fourth Defendant: Villa Management SL
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue
Outcome
Preliminary issues determined in favour of the Claimant on both issues: the works were 'refurbishment' and the staircase was not of 'restricted use'.
Legal Topics
Personal Injury, Negligence, Foreign Law Application, Building Regulations, Standard of Care, Interpretation of Statutes
Tort Law Private International Law Construction Law Personal Injury Negligence Foreign Law Application Building Regulations Standard of Care +1 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lydia Deane

Claimant

Paul James Barker

First Defendant

Anita Jayne Barker, née Hamilton

Second Defendant

Reale Seguros Generales SA

Third Defendant

Villa Management SL

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Trial of Preliminary Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the works at the villa constituted 'refurbishment' or 'maintenance' under Spanish law (CTE)
  2. 2 Whether the villa's staircase was for 'restricted use' or 'general use' under the CTE/SUA
  3. 3 Whether breach or compliance with the CTE gives rise to breach of duty in English and Spanish law

Ratio Decidendi

The works carried out at the villa in 2017 were 'refurbishment' and not 'maintenance' as defined in Annex III of the CTE, triggering the application of the CTE. The villa's staircase was not for 'restricted use' as defined in Annex A to the SUA, as it was accessible to more than 10 non-habitual users. The CTE therefore applied to the works and the more stringent safety standards for general use staircases were engaged.

Court Disposition

Preliminary issues determined in favour of the Claimant on both issues: the works were 'refurbishment' and the staircase was not of 'restricted use'.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 2017 works constituted 'refurbishment' under the CTE and triggered its application.
  • Declaration that the villa's staircase was not of 'restricted use' under the CTE/SUA.