Royal Mail Group Ltd v Watson [2021] EWHC 2098 (Admin) (28 July 2021)

Royal Mail Group Ltd v Watson [2021] EWHC 2098 (Admin) (28 July 2021)

A postal worker inserting fingers through a letter box to deliver mail does not become a trespasser; the implied permission to use the letter box is not limited by the use of a postal peg. The householder defence does not apply, and there is no defence of lack of due diligence by the injured party under the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2098 (Admin)
Parties
Appellant: Royal Mail Group Limited; Respondent: Richard Watson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (divisional Court) Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court Acquittal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; acquittal overturned.
Legal Topics
Strict Liability, Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, Householder Defence, Trespass, Causation in Criminal Offences
Criminal Law Animal Law Strict Liability Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Householder Defence Trespass Causation in Criminal Offences

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Royal Mail Group Limited

Appellant

Richard Watson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal by Way of Case Stated / High Court (divisional Court) Judgment on Appeal From Magistrates' Court Acquittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a postal worker inserting fingers through a letter box constitutes trespass for the purposes of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
  2. 2 Whether the householder defence under sections 3(1A) and 3(1B) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 applies in these circumstances
  3. 3 Whether lack of due diligence by the postal worker provides a defence to the dog owner under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

A postal worker inserting fingers through a letter box to deliver mail does not become a trespasser; the implied permission to use the letter box is not limited by the use of a postal peg. The householder defence does not apply, and there is no defence of lack of due diligence by the injured party under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Liability is strict and falls on the dog owner if the dog is dangerously out of control and causes injury, unless the injured party is a trespasser.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; acquittal overturned.

Orders

  • All three questions posed by the District Judge answered in the negative.
  • Case remitted for further proceedings consistent with this judgment.