0370 270 6000

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

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