header-logo header-logo

26 August 2014 / Matthew Harpin
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Litigation highway

Matthew Harpin examines the meaning of a s 58 defence under the Highways Act 1980

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Wilkinson v City of York Council [2011] EWCA Civ 207, [2011] All ER (D) 162 (Jan) sent a collective shudder through highway authorities up and down the country given the climate of budget cuts and austerity measures that were being implemented.

Wilkinson

In Wilkinson, Lord Justice Toulson considered the meaning of the council’s defence to a highway liability claim under s 58 of the Highways Act 1980 (HA 1980). This provided a defence where the highway authority could demonstrate that it had done that which was “reasonably required to secure that the part of the highway to which the action relates was not dangerous for traffic”.

Toulson LJ held that an objective judgment based on risk was required when considering whether a highway authority had the benefit of a s 58 defence. He also held that the matters highlighted in s 58(2) are all objective going to the condition of the highway

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll