Furnell v Flaherty (t/a Godstone Farm) [2013] EWHC 377 (QB) (27 February 2013)

Furnell v Flaherty (t/a Godstone Farm) [2013] EWHC 377 (QB) (27 February 2013)

The Health Protection Agency and Tandridge District Council did not owe a duty of care to visitors of Godstone Farm in respect of the E. coli outbreak. Statutory powers and duties alone do not create a private law duty of care, and there was no assumption of responsibility or relationship sufficient to generate such...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 377 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Aaron George Furnell; Claimant: Todd Sydney Furnell; Litigation Friend: Tracy Ann Mock; Defendant: Jacqueline Flaherty; Third Party: Health Protection Agency; Fourth Party: Tandridge District Council
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out of Additional Claims Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; strike out of additional claims upheld.
Legal Topics
Duty of Care, Assumption of Responsibility, Statutory Powers and Duties, Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978, Occupiers' Liability, Health and Safety Regulation
Tort Law Public Authority Liability Negligence Duty of Care Assumption of Responsibility Statutory Powers and Duties Civil Liability (contribution) Act 1978 Occupiers' Liability +1 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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aaron George Furnell

Claimant

Todd Sydney Furnell

Claimant

Tracy Ann Mock

Litigation Friend

Jacqueline Flaherty

Defendant

Health Protection Agency

Third Party

Tandridge District Council

Fourth Party

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Strike Out of Additional Claims Under CPR 3.4(2)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether public authorities (Health Protection Agency and Tandridge District Council) owed a duty of care to visitors of Godstone Farm in respect of E. coli outbreak
  2. 2 Whether statutory powers and duties can give rise to a common law duty of care
  3. 3 Whether there was an assumption of responsibility by the third parties

Ratio Decidendi

The Health Protection Agency and Tandridge District Council did not owe a duty of care to visitors of Godstone Farm in respect of the E. coli outbreak. Statutory powers and duties alone do not create a private law duty of care, and there was no assumption of responsibility or relationship sufficient to generate such a duty. The third parties' actions were for the public good, not for individual claimants, and the law as settled in Gorringe precludes liability for omissions in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; strike out of additional claims upheld.

Orders

  • Additional claims against Health Protection Agency and Tandridge District Council struck out.
  • No duty of care owed by third parties to claimants.