William Brown v Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd

William Brown v Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd

The Defendant was negligent in the implementation and maintenance of the cycle lane bollards, specifically by failing to install and monitor them in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and failing to address a known risk of vandalism that left hazardous unmarked bases in the cycle lane. The Defendant’s system of inspection was inadequate, and the risk to cyclists was foreseeable and not reasonably mitigated. The Claimant proved the cause of his accident. There was no fundamental dishonesty by the Claimant. A 5% deduction for contributory negligence was appropriate due to the Claimant’s positioning on the cycle lane.

Parties
Claimant: Mr William Brown; Defendant: Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 August 2025
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury/negligence / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant on liability, with a 5% deduction for contributory negligence. Quantum to be determined following further submissions.
Legal Topics
Negligence, Public Nuisance, Occupier's Liability, Contributory Negligence, Damages, Disability Discrimination, Expert Evidence
Tort Personal Injury Occupier's Liability Nuisance Negligence Public Nuisance Contributory Negligence Damages +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 8 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr William Brown

Claimant

Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury/negligence / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant was negligent in the installation and maintenance of the cycle lane and bollards
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant caused or permitted a public nuisance on the highway
  3. 3 Whether the Claimant was contributorily negligent

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant was negligent in the implementation and maintenance of the cycle lane bollards, specifically by failing to install and monitor them in accordance with manufacturer’s instructions and failing to address a known risk of vandalism that left hazardous unmarked bases in the cycle lane. The Defendant’s system of inspection was inadequate, and the risk to cyclists was foreseeable and not reasonably mitigated. The Claimant proved the cause of his accident. There was no fundamental dishonesty by the Claimant. A 5% deduction for contributory negligence was appropriate due to the Claimant’s positioning on the cycle lane.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant on liability, with a 5% deduction for contributory negligence. Quantum to be determined following further submissions.

Orders

  • Defendant liable in negligence and nuisance for the Claimant’s accident and injuries
  • Damages to be assessed, with a 5% deduction for contributory negligence