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?

Grealis v Opuni, Court of Appeal, 28 January 2003

5 February 2003
The issues

Road traffic – overtaking – motorcycle.

The facts

The Claimant was an 18 year old student working part-time as a Pizza Delivery boy. In July 1997 sometime after 11.00 pm, he was riding a moped along the A5 intending to turn right to make his last delivery. The traffic lights were on green and there were some other vehicles in the filter lane also waiting to make a right hand turn. The Claimant jumped the queue and instead of remaining in the filter lane to turn right, passed to the right of the centre bollard before making his turn. He collided with a car being driven across the junction on the other side of the carriageway. The car was travelling at something between 37 and 39 mph. The speed limit was 30 mph. The collision was between the front of the car and the rear wheel of the moped and the Judge found in probability that the collision would have been avoided if the car had been travelling at a slower speed. Nonetheless, the driver’s breach of the Road Traffic Acts could not be equated with a breach of duty of which the Judge found none on the driver’s part. The claim was dismissed. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

The Defendant should have been aware of the possibility of vehicles that were queuing to cross the road miss-judging the speed of oncoming traffic and crossing at an inappropriate time. It was negligent in those circumstances to drive at a speed in excess of the speed limit. The Claimant bore a heavy responsibility to the extent of 80%. Appeal allowed.

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