Court of Appeal Judgment – Edwards v London Borough of Sutton (2016)



The Court of Appeal handed down judgment today in the eagerly anticipated appeal in Edwards v London Borough of Sutton (2016). The claim concerned the duty owed by occupiers for structures present on their land. The Claimant was pushing a bicycle over a small ornamental footbridge which passed over a stream in a park owned and occupied by the London Borough of Sutton. The bridge was humped and had obviously low parapet sides. It was many years old and there was no history of any previous accidents. For reasons which remained unexplained and unproved at trial, the claimant lost his balance and fell over the edge, into the water below. As a result he sustained a serious spinal cord injury.

The trial judge at first instance found that the duty under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 did not necessitate an enquiry into the objective safety of the premises but only into whether the visitor was ‘safe in using’ them. He considered that although the Defendant was not obliged to update the bridge by installing handrails in circumstances where there had been no standards or requirements which existed at the date of its construction, there was nonetheless an obligation on the Defendant, who had not properly risk assessed the bridge, to warn visitors of the presence of the low parapets and instruct them to take a different route through the park.

The Court of Appeal (McCombe LJ giving the lead judgment with whom Arden and Lewison LLJ agreed), held that the judge had failed to recognise that under the 1957 Act it was necessary to identify what the relevant danger (if any) is before considering whether the occupier is required to do anything about it. It noted that ornamental bridges with low walls were common features of public gardens and are regularly traversed without difficulty. Whilst it was possible, in principle, for the low parapets sides of the wall to constitute a ‘danger’, such a feature did not trigger a duty on the authority to take any further steps, for two reasons. First of all, the seriousness of the accident which had befallen the Claimant could not be equated with there being a serious risk of it occurring in the first place. There had been no previous accidents of any kind and any risk, if it existed, was remote. Secondly, relying on Staples v West Dorset (1995) PIQR 439 and other authorities, the court held that there was no duty to warn of obvious risks. The approach to the bridge was clear and its width and the height of the parapets was obvious. Furthermore, a risk assessment would have made no difference.

McCombe LJ concluded by noting that he found himself in agreement with the submissions of Counsel for the Defendant that “not every accident (even if it has serious consequences) has to have been the fault of another; and an occupier is not an insurer against injuries sustained on his premises”.

Andrew Warnock QC and Jack Harding, of 1 Chancery Lane, instructed by Clyde & Co LLP, acted for the successful local authority

A copy of the full Judgment is available here

Latest News & Events

The Dekagram: 13th May 2024

Last week brought the news that the Australian airline Qantas and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission have agreed to resolve their dispute over cancelled flights by asking the court to impose a $100 million fine, together with an undertaking by the airline to pay…

Max Melsa appears in Court of Appeal in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Max Melsa represented the children, through their Children’s Guardian, in the first case to reach the Court of Appeal specifically dealing with the interpretation of Hair-Strand Tests in care proceedings. The appeal was made by the mother against the interim separation of three children from…

Dekinar: Understanding the New Fixed Costs Regime for Cross-Border Claims

In this webinar, Thomas Yarrow and Anirudh Mandagere will take a look at the new fixed costs regime with a specific eye on its impacts on litigation with a cross-border element. Thomas and Anirudh will also answer any questions you may have on the issues…

Subscribe to our mailing list

Deka Chambers: 5 Norwich Street, London EC4A 1DR

© Deka Chambers 2024


Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)