Yates v Dublin Bouldering Gym Ltd and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 181 (13 March 2026)

Yates v Dublin Bouldering Gym Ltd and Anor (Approved) [2026] IEHC 181 (13 March 2026)

The operator of a recreational facility does not owe a duty to induct, train, or supervise adult participants in respect of risks that are inherent and obvious in the activity voluntarily undertaken. No contractual or assumed responsibility for such measures was established. The plaintiff's injuries resulted from the materialisation of an inherent risk, not from any breach by the defendants. No causative link between any alleged omission and the injuries was proven.

Citation
[2026] IEHC 181
Parties
Plaintiff: Kathryn Yates; First Defendant: Dublin Bouldering Gym Limited; Second Defendant: The Royal College of Surgeons Ireland
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
13 March 2026
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Negligence / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Negligence, Assumption of Risk, Duty of Care, Personal Injury, Contractual Obligations, Occupiers' Liability, Causation
Tort Law Contract Law Occupiers' Liability Negligence Assumption of Risk Duty of Care Personal Injury Contractual Obligations +1 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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kathryn Yates

Plaintiff

Dublin Bouldering Gym Limited

First Defendant

The Royal College of Surgeons Ireland

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Negligence / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the operator of a recreational facility owes a duty to induct, train, or supervise adult participants in respect of inherent risks of the activity.
  2. 2 Whether any contractual or assumed responsibility arose for the provision of instruction or supervision.
  3. 3 Whether the second defendant owed a duty to conduct a risk assessment or provide safety measures for a student recreational activity.

Ratio Decidendi

The operator of a recreational facility does not owe a duty to induct, train, or supervise adult participants in respect of risks that are inherent and obvious in the activity voluntarily undertaken. No contractual or assumed responsibility for such measures was established. The plaintiff's injuries resulted from the materialisation of an inherent risk, not from any breach by the defendants. No causative link between any alleged omission and the injuries was proven.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed