placeholder-image coin

Esdale v Dover DC, [2010] EWCA Civ 409

Esdale v Dover DC, [2010] EWCA Civ 409


Citation:Esdale v Dover DC, [2010] EWCA Civ 409

Link to case on WorldLII.

Rule of thumb:As a tenant, if you trip on a path maintained by a landlord/property-factor, how big does the defect have to be to have a possible claim? If it is bigger than ¾ of an inch then it may be a claim.

Judgment:

The basic facts of this case were that the tenant tripped on a defect in the path of her flat. The flat landlord was the Council. The tenant was not able to argue that the defect was higher than ¾ of an inch. The Court therefore held that it was unreasonable to ask the Council to repair defects less than this. The test of whether in all the circumstances the Council has taken such steps as are reasonable to see that visitors are reasonably safe does not depend on what standards of safety the Council sets itself as a matter of policy. The test to be applied is an objective one... The question in effect: Does the Judge, as the embodiment of the reasonable person, think that the Council has taken such steps as are reasonable in all the circumstances to keep the visitor – the claimant here – reasonably safe? What the Council sets as a policy is certainly not determinative, although I would not go as far that it is irrelevant’.

centered image

Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.