0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Chittock v Woodbridge School, High Court

25 September 2001
The issues

Schools – School Trips – Supervision – Horseplay

The facts

The claimant and two other pupils who were all about 14 were allowed by the School to go on a Ski-ing Trip which had already been organised for pupils aged 12-14.

It was clear to the School and to the parents that the claimant and friends would be on a largely independent holiday although they would be generally supervised by the staff. It was not in anybody’s minds that they would be ski-ing with the other pupils or that they would be under the control of the staff as to where and when they skied.

The claimant was seen ski-ing off-piste and was told by staff he was not to do so. He was seen ski-ing off-piste a second time and warned but not punished. The school could have taken his ski pass away or made him ski with the other pupils.

The claimant skied off-piste a third time and had an injury suffering a serious accident to his back leaving him with low paraplegia and no feeling below his knees. He sued.

The decision

The staff of the school had been put on Notice that the claimant was doing something he had clearly been prohibited from doing when they found him ski-ing off-piste for the second time. The staff should have known that he could not be trusted to do as he was told.

Merely telling the claimant off was not in the reasonable range of responses from a member of staff in the place of a parent. This was a breach of the school’s duty. If a more substantial punishment had been administered the claimant would not have been able to ski off-piste again.

The claimant was however guilty of substantial contributory negligence – apportioned at 50%.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up