On 21 September 2014, Deborah Barlow tripped and fell over an exposed tree root on a path (the ‘Path’) in Abram Park in Wigan and brought a personal injury claim against Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’)
This article is taken from June's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.
On 21 September 2014, Deborah Barlow tripped and fell over an exposed tree root on a path (the ‘Path’) in Abram Park in Wigan and brought a personal injury claim against Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council (the ‘Council’).
The claim was dismissed at first instance, but at the first Appeal before Waksam J, the claimant succeeded which led to the Council’s Appeal. Following a judgment handed down on 1 June 2020, the Court of Appeal has again found for the claimant albeit for different reasons than those given by the court below.
Key facts/arguments
The decision for the Court of Appeal - was the Path a highway or highway maintainable at public expense?
If the Path was highway maintainable at public expense, the defect was a dangerous defect, the Council was in breach of its statutory duty under Section 41 of the 1980 Act and in the absence of a Section 58 Defence, the Claimant would win.
Conversely, if the Path was a highway and not highway maintainable at public expense, then the Council relied upon binding House of Lords authority in McGeown v Northern Ireland Housing Executive [1995] 1 AC 233 which gave it a complete Defence to the claim.
To those unfamiliar with McGeown, this decision makes it clear that:
Bean LJ gave the leading judgment in Barlow v Wigan MBC. His obiter comments criticise the decision in McGeown. At paragraph 9 of his judgment, Bean LJ states that:
“the proposition that a Local Authority can owe a greater duty to park users walking on the grass than to park users walking on a path is to my mind absurd”.
His comments suggest that the rule in McGeown ought to be limited only to persons coming onto land for the sole reason that a public right of way exists upon the land. Bean LJ’s interpretation of McGeown has not become new law. However, his comments may be used by Claimants in the future to try to limit the circumstances in which a McGeown Defence may operate. For example:
The decision in Barlow v Wigan MBC has not changed the rule in McGeown. However, when McGeown is applied in future cases, Bean LJ’s obiter comments will likely be used to try to weaken a McGeown Defence deployed by Highway Authorities. We will simply have to wait and see how much force Bean LJ’s comments may have and the extent to which (and perhaps more importantly how far through the Courts) parties are prepared to argue the point.
Partner
matthew.harpin@brownejacobson.com
+44 (0)121 237 3970
Law firm Browne Jacobson has collaborated with Wiltshire Council and Christ Church Business School on the launch event of The Council Company Best Practice and Innovation Network, a platform which brings together academic experts and senior local authority leaders, allowing them to share best practice in relation to council companies.
In the Autumn Statement delivered on 17 November, rises to the National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage rates were announced, to take effect from 1 April 2023.
Announced in September but scrapped on 17 November the investment zone proposals were very short lived. The proposal has now morphed into the proposal for a smaller number of clustered zones earmarked for investment.
Settlement agreements are commonplace in an employment context and are ordinarily used to provide the parties to the agreement with certainty following the conclusion of an employment relationship.
On 2 November 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the much awaiting case of Hillside Parks Ltd v Snowdonia National Park Authority [2022] UKSC 30. The Court’s judgment suggests that the long established practice of using drop-in applications is in fact much more restricted than previously thought. This judgment therefore has significant implications for both the developers and local planning authorities.
In ‘failure to remove’ claims, the claimant alleges abuse in the family home and asserts that the local authority should have known about the abuse and/or that they should have removed the claimant from the family home and into care earlier.
Across the UK, homelessness is an urgent crisis, and one that is set to grow amid the rising cost of living. Local authorities are at the forefront of responding to this crisis, but with a lack of properties that are suitable for social housing across the UK, vulnerable individuals and families are often housed in temporary accommodation.
Claims arising from interest-only mortgages have been farmed in volume. Many such claims to date have sought to drive a narrative that interest-only mortgages are an inherently toxic product and brokers were negligent simply for suggesting them. Taylor is a helpful recalibration, focussing instead on what the monies raised by the mortgage product were being used for and whether the client understood the inherent risks.
Two directors of a construction company were fined after failing to ensure the safe removal of asbestos from a plot of land. On 14 and 15 November 2021, Directors Anthony Sumner and Neil Brown, of Waterbarn Limited were involved in the uncontrolled removal of asbestos material from a plot of land in Grasscroft, Oldham.
An engineering company in Tyne and Wear was fined £20,000 after a worker fractured his pelvis and suffered internal injuries after falling through a petrol station forecourt canopy, whilst he was replacing the guttering.
NHS England has issued an updated (publication 11 October 2022) suite of Complex Change guidance about how it will assure and support proposals for complex change that are reportable to it. New and (where it is still in force) existing Complex Change guidance are as follows.
Updates include UK Shared Prosperity Fund, contracts, Subsidy Control Bill, data controller liability, Government Covid-19 procurement and Highway Code revisions.
The complex and rather nebulous transitional subsidy control regime set out in the UK-EU Trade and Co-operation Agreement and the UK’s wider international commitments has made it difficult for public authorities and those working with them to proceed with certainty where subsidies are involved.
Investment zones have been introduced by the Conservative party to get the United Kingdom (UK) ‘working, building and growing’. They are to be designated sites which provide time-limited tax incentives, streamlined planning rules and wider support for local growth to encourage investment and accelerate the development of housing and infrastructure that the UK needs to drive economic growth. Processes and requirements that slow down development will be stripped back with the intention of attracting new investment.