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

Gabriel v Kirklees Metropolitan Council, Court of Appeal, 24 March 2004

1 April 2003
The issues

Children on Local Authority land assaulting passer-by – Local Authority’s liability – failure to fence – failure to prevent land being used as a play area – allurement.

The facts

On the 5th July 1997, Tashan Gabriel aged 6, was seriously injured in his left eye when he was struck in the eye by stone or some mud thrown by children playing on a building site. The building site was owned by Kirklees Metropolitan Council. The Council was undertaking demolition work on the site. At the time of the accident, it was alleged that the whole area was covered in rubble, including mud, bricks, stone and glass. It was surrounded by residential accommodation. The case was dismissed by the Judge at first instance. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Judgment of the first instance Judge had made very few findings of fact and was fatally flawed. The Judge had made no findings of fact as to the background circumstances. There was no description of the site and the dimensions of the site were not given. There were no findings as to the general condition of the site or as to the nature and extent of debris or rubble accumulated during the excavation work and left unprotected. The extent to which rubble accumulated was relevant to whether or not it represented an allurement to trespassing children to play with. There were no findings as to the Council’s knowledge or means of acquiring knowledge as to the risks that children would trespass on the site, or as to the extent of that risk. There was no reference in the Judgment to documents that were before the Court, such as an undated safety plan, dealing with things to be done to minimise risks, particularly risks to the public and children. These documents tended to show that the Council was aware of the risk of children gaining access to the site and the dangers to the surrounding area resulting from the conditions on the site. The Judge had found that there was no duty of care owing, but before making that finding the Judge should have asked:-

(i) Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that children would go onto the construction site;

(ii) Whether whilst on the construction site it was reasonably foreseeable that children would play there;

(iii) Whether it was reasonably foreseeable that in playing on the site they would thrown whatever came to hand;

(iv) Whether in playing with the material on site, it was reasonably foreseeable that they might cause injury to those passing by on the pavement. The Court of Appeal was unable to substitute its decision because of the absence of relevant findings of fact and the matter would therefore be remitted to a different Trial Judge.
Appeal Allowed.


With all due respect to Mr Justice Moses who delivered the main Judgment, the incremental questions he poses for the Trial Judge are questions which can only be answered yes and risk falling into the error the Court of Appeal has otherwise castigated, namely the “for want of a nail the kingdom was lost” argument, constructed with the benefit of hindsight.

focus on...

Legal updates

SRA Standards and Regulations November 2019

On Monday 25 November the 2011 SRA Handbook is replaced by the 2019 SRA Standards and Regulations (often referred to as STARS).This is the 26th version of the Code of Conduct for Solicitors.


Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).


Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.


Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.


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