0370 270 6000

Mirvahedy v Henley, House of Lords

25 March 2003
The issues

RTA – Animal Act 1971 Section 2.

The facts

The Claimant sued for damages for personal injuries when his car collided with a horse belonging to the Defendants. The horse had escaped from its field during the night breaking through an electric fence, a barbed wire fence and undergrowth. The horse, together with two other horses in the same field had got onto the A380. One of them crashed into the Claimant’s car causing damage and serious personal injuries. The Judge at first instance found that the horses had escaped because of some unknown event that had caused them to panic and trample the fences and posts that would otherwise have been adequate for keeping in normal horses. He found no negligence.

He found no liability under Section 2(ii) Animals Act 1971 because the damage had been caused by the presence of the horses on the road, rather than by any abnormal or unusual characteristics they displayed. The Claimant appealed to the Court of Appeal, who allowed the Appeal on the basis that the accident had been caused by the particular characteristics of the horses once they had escaped and that the Animals Act did cover temporary characteristics, which were normal to the breed, even in unusual circumstances.

The Defendant appealed to the House of Lords.

The decision

The Decision (by a Majority of 3-2)

1. The Court of Appeal had been correct. The keeper could be liable where the behaviour of the animal was not normally found in animals of the same species, but the keeper could also be liable where the behaviour, although not generally displayed by animals of that species, was normal in particular circumstances or at particular times. So the behaviour of the horses in bolting in panic was normal in the circumstances of being panicked by an external event.


As Lord Nicholl noted, it is difficult to see circumstances in which Section 2 (ii)(b)
will not be satisfied where an animal has caused an accident and the width of the strict liability imposed by the Act is accordingly widened.

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