Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd

Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd

The trial judge's conclusion that the game as played carried only a very small risk of serious injury was not based on a sufficiently critical analysis of the expert evidence, failed to consider relevant eye-witness impressions, and relied inappropriately on general statistics. The findings on risk and breach of duty cannot stand and the matter must be remitted for retrial.

Parties
Appellant: Mr Robert Lee Uren; 1st Respondent: Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Ministry of Defence
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
02 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, case remitted for retrial
Legal Topics
Negligence, Employer's Liability, Risk Assessment, Non Delegable Duty, Personal Injury
Tort Law Employment Law Health and Safety Negligence Employer's Liability Risk Assessment Non Delegable Duty Personal Injury

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Robert Lee Uren

Appellant

Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd

1st Respondent

Ministry of Defence

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the failure to carry out a suitable and sufficient risk assessment by the defendants was causative of the claimant's injury
  2. 2 Whether the game as played exposed participants to an unacceptable risk of serious injury such that the defendants breached their duty of care
  3. 3 Whether the Ministry of Defence could delegate its statutory and common law duty to carry out a risk assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The trial judge's conclusion that the game as played carried only a very small risk of serious injury was not based on a sufficiently critical analysis of the expert evidence, failed to consider relevant eye-witness impressions, and relied inappropriately on general statistics. The findings on risk and breach of duty cannot stand and the matter must be remitted for retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, case remitted for retrial

Orders

  • Action remitted for retrial by a different High Court Judge limited to the degree of risk of serious injury entailed in the game as played and whether that risk was acceptable in light of the social value of the game.
  • If the risk is found unacceptable, the judge to apportion responsibility between the defendants.