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?

Curtis v Borough of Broxbourne Council, Luton County Court, 9 December 2003

17 December 2003
The issues

Tripping claim – Credibility of Claimant and Claimant’s witnesses untrue witness statements.

The facts

This claim concerned an alleged tripping accident on 27th October 2000 against the Defendant Highway Authority. The Claimant said she tripped on an uneven paving slab, raised by about 2 inches. The Defendant said however that the uneven paving slab was repaired about a month before the Claimant’s alleged fall. An “independent” witness allegedly witnessed the accident and subsequent repairs. There was therefore a significant issue of credibility, fuelled by a delay of about 3 weeks before the Claimant sought medical attention and other entries in the GP notes, which indicated that the Claimant had suffered a series of physical assaults before and after the alleged incident date. One of the assaults, a month before the alleged trip, resulted in similar injuries to that allegedly sustained in the trip. The Defendant contended that there had been no trip.

The decision

1. There were inconsistencies in the oral evidence of the Claimant, her boyfriend and the “independent” witness.

2. The District Judge found it difficult to accept, mechanically, how the Claimant could have injured the top of her head in the fall.

3. The Judge preferred the Defendant’s evidence that repairs had been completed approximately one month before the alleged trip.

4. The Judge dismissed the claim, saying that he was not satisfied that the accident occurred in the way in which the Claimant said it did. The Claimant had failed to discharge the burden of proof. The Claimant was ordered to pay the Defendant’s costs.

Claim dismissed.


For further information about this case please contact Darren Salter at darrensalter@veitchpenny.co.uk

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