Maguire v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

Maguire v Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council & Anor

Section 5 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 prescribes that the duty owed to contractual visitors is the common duty of care, not a stricter implied warranty of safety. The council discharged this duty by engaging Precor, a competent independent contractor, to inspect and maintain the equipment. There was no evidence that the council had reason to doubt Precor’s competence or the adequacy of their inspection. The council was not liable in contract or under the Act.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paul Maguire; First Defendant/appellant: Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council; Second Defendant: Precor Products Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal allowed; judgment against council set aside
Legal Topics
Occupiers' Liability, Implied Contractual Terms, Duty of Care, Liability for Independent Contractors
Tort Law Contract Law Statutory Interpretation Occupiers' Liability Implied Contractual Terms Duty of Care Liability for Independent Contractors

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Maguire

Claimant/respondent

Sefton Metropolitan Borough Council

First Defendant/appellant

Precor Products Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the council was liable in contract or under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 for injuries suffered by the claimant on defective gym equipment.
  2. 2 Whether the implied contractual term owed to the claimant exceeded the statutory common duty of care under section 5 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
  3. 3 Whether the council discharged its common duty of care by engaging a competent independent contractor (Precor) for inspection and maintenance.

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5 of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 prescribes that the duty owed to contractual visitors is the common duty of care, not a stricter implied warranty of safety. The council discharged this duty by engaging Precor, a competent independent contractor, to inspect and maintain the equipment. There was no evidence that the council had reason to doubt Precor’s competence or the adequacy of their inspection. The council was not liable in contract or under the Act.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; judgment against council set aside

Orders

  • Council acquitted of liability in contract and under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.
  • No liability to claimant established against council.