Clark v Bowlt [2006] EWCA Civ 978 (26 June 2006)

Clark v Bowlt [2006] EWCA Civ 978 (26 June 2006)

The requirements of section 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Animals Act 1971 were not satisfied because the damage was not likely to be caused by the horse unless restrained, and the relevant characteristic (weight or propensity to move unpredictably) was normal for the species. Therefore, strict liability did not arise.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Civ 978
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Richard James Clark; Respondent: Keren Lesley Bowlt
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim and counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Animals Act 1971, Negligence, Interpretation of Statutes
Tort Law Animal Law Strict Liability Animals Act 1971 Negligence Interpretation of Statutes

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard James Clark

Appellant/defendant

Keren Lesley Bowlt

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the keeper of a horse is strictly liable under section 2 of the Animals Act 1971 for damage caused by the horse in the absence of negligence
  2. 2 Proper interpretation of section 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Animals Act 1971

Ratio Decidendi

The requirements of section 2(2)(a) and (b) of the Animals Act 1971 were not satisfied because the damage was not likely to be caused by the horse unless restrained, and the relevant characteristic (weight or propensity to move unpredictably) was normal for the species. Therefore, strict liability did not arise.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim and counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Claim dismissed