header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
26 August 2014 / Matthew Harpin
Issue: 7621 / Categories: Features , Local government , Public
printer mail-detail

Litigation highway

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll