0370 270 6000

Whittle v Weymouth Portland Borough Council, Bournemouth County Court

11 December 2002
The issues

Occupiers Liability Act – Dock Regulations 1988 – slipping.

The facts

The Claimant and his wife arrived at about midnight at the arrivals hall in Weymouth having disembarked from the Condor Ferry on which they had travelled from the Channel Islands. The Claimant alleged that he fell as a result of a wet floor in the arrival hall. Carpet was laid in a covered passage along which the Claimant had to walk which took him to the uncarpeted arrivals hall. Since the accident the arrivals hall has also been carpeted. At the time the arrivals hall was painted and repainted every year with non-slip paint. The accident report form referred to the cause of the accident as being a “wet floor”. The Claimant relied on the common duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act and under Regulation 7 of the Dock Regulations requiring a mandatory duty to provide and maintain a safe means of access to every part of dock premises and to ensure that all floors, decks, surfaces, stairs, steps, passages and gangways in dock premises should be kept free from substances likely to cause a person to slip or fall.

The decision

(i) Following Laverton v Kiapasha the Court had to be aware against imposing “a near strict liability” under the Occupiers Liability Act.

(ii) On the evidence the floor was not damp or wet when the Claimant fell. The accident report form had been filled in on the basis of the Claimant’s own information. It was not independent evidence in support of the Claimant.

(iii) Even if the floor had been wet, the presence of non-slip paint and the extent of carpet in the passage leading to the hall amounted to reasonable precautions in the circumstances. Claim dismissed.


For further information, please contact Hamish McConachie on hcm@vpinsurance.net

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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