Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Anor

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Anor

A properly conducted risk assessment would have identified a more than minimal risk of serious injury from headfirst entry into the pool during the game. The risk was foreseeable and not so small as to be ignored. The Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent headfirst entry, which would have been a proportionate response and would not have significantly diminished the social value of the game. This failure constituted a breach of duty, and the injury was a foreseeable consequence of that breach.

Parties
Claimant: Robert Lee Uren; First Defendant: Corporate Leisure (UK) Limited; Second Defendant: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Liability Retrial Following Appeal
Outcome
Claim for liability established against both Defendants; apportionment and quantum to be determined.
Legal Topics
Risk Assessment, Duty of Care, Breach of Duty, Causation, Foreseeability, Standard of Care, Recreational Injury, Employer's Liability
Tort Law Personal Injury Occupiers' Liability Negligence Risk Assessment Duty of Care Breach of Duty Causation +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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Lee Uren

Claimant

Corporate Leisure (UK) Limited

First Defendant

Ministry of Defence

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Liability Retrial Following Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What was the degree of risk of serious injury entailed in the game as played on the day of the Claimant’s accident?
  2. 2 Was that degree of risk acceptable in the light of the social value of the game?

Ratio Decidendi

A properly conducted risk assessment would have identified a more than minimal risk of serious injury from headfirst entry into the pool during the game. The risk was foreseeable and not so small as to be ignored. The Defendants failed to take reasonable steps to prevent headfirst entry, which would have been a proportionate response and would not have significantly diminished the social value of the game. This failure constituted a breach of duty, and the injury was a foreseeable consequence of that breach.

Court Disposition

Claim for liability established against both Defendants; apportionment and quantum to be determined.

Orders

  • Claimant succeeds on liability; damages and apportionment to be determined if not agreed.