England and Wales Case Law

Adam Lillystone v Bradgate Education Partnership

The Respondent owed no duty to the Appellant under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 because the risks of climbing the gate were obvious and willingly accepted, and the danger was not due to the state of the premises but the act of climbing. Alternatively, the Appellant was a trespasser when climbing the gate and no duty was owed under the 1984 Act as the Respondent had no knowledge of the burr and could not reasonably be expected to protect against the risk. Even if a duty was owed, the Respondent had adequate measures for ball retrieval. The cause of injury was the Appellant's own choice to…

Source excerpt

• Occupiers liability act 1957
• Occupiers liability act 1984
• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Risk assessment
• Trespass

Read case analysis

Maina Kumari Rai v Advantage Insurance Company Limited (t/a Hastings Insurance)

Personal injury road traffic claim dismissed after the claimant failed to prove the driver breached his duty of care or caused the collision.

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Standard of care
• Contributory negligence
• Road traffic accidents
• Burden of proof

Read case analysis

The Wine Enterprise Investment Scheme Limited (In Liquidation) v Crowe UK LLP

High Court audit-negligence claim over TWEISL’s wine investment scheme, addressing breach, causation, reporting duties, contributory fault, and damages.

• Auditor's duties
• Causation in professional negligence
• Attribution of director fraud
• Liquidation and misappropriation
• Contributory negligence
• Interest on damages

Read case analysis

Sara Turnball v Neilson Active Holidays Ltd

The defendant breached its duty of care by failing to install a dampener or otherwise modify the fridge lid to mitigate a clear and foreseeable risk of serious injury, despite the ubiquity of the design and the presence of warning signs. Warning signs and safety induction were inadequate control mechanisms. The claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to operate the fridge correctly, warranting a 30% reduction in damages.

Source excerpt

• Duty of care
• Local standards
• Risk assessment
• Contributory negligence
• Fundamental dishonesty
• Package travel regulations

Read case analysis

SRN v Nekiwala & Anor

SRN v Nekiwala & Anor [2026] EWHC 16 (KB) (09 January 2026)

The High Court granted a further interim payment in a serious road traffic injury claim, awarding £60,000 after a cautious assessment of damages and contributory negligence.

• Interim payments
• Contributory negligence
• Damages assessment
• Brain injury
• Road traffic accident
• Interim-payments

Read case analysis

Sip v Marsh & Anor

Sip v Marsh & Anor [2025] EWHC 3302 (KB) (19 December 2025)

The High Court dismissed a claimant’s appeal in a road traffic negligence case, holding that the defendant driver was not liable for a collision caused by the claimant’s excessive speed.

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Causation
• Standard of care
• Contributory negligence
• Duty-of-care

Read case analysis

Damian Thomas Sip v Adrian Marsh & Anor

The High Court dismissed an appeal in a road traffic case, holding that the respondent driver was not negligent in stopping short of the give way lines.

• Negligence
• Duty of care
• Causation
• Standard of care
• Contributory negligence
• Duty-of-care

Read case analysis

Shaheen & Anor v Daish

Shaheen & Anor v Daish [2025] EWHC 3056 (KB) (28 November 2025)

The High Court found a GP failed to tell a patient about a chest x-ray request, held he would have attended if informed, and rejected contributory negligence.

• Failure to inform patient
• Contributory negligence
• Duty of care
• Preliminary issues
• Clinical-negligence
• Medical-negligence

Read case analysis

Amina Shaheen & Anor v Dr Joanna Daish

The High Court found a GP failed to tell a deceased patient about a requested chest x-ray, that he would have attended if told, and that he was not contributorily negligent.

• Failure to inform patient
• Contributory negligence
• Clinical negligence
• Missed diagnosis
• Clinical-negligence
• Medical-negligence

Read case analysis

Linear Investments Limited v Financial Ombudsman Service Limited

Court of Appeal held Linear failed the FCA client-classification rules, upheld the Ombudsman’s benchmark choice, but allowed a contributory negligence challenge and remitted quantum.

• Client classification under fca rules
• Contributory negligence
• Compensation calculation
• Judicial review standards
• Financial-services-regulation
• Judicial-review

Read case analysis