header-logo header-logo

14 August 2013
Issue: 7573 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Negligence

Gilman v UPS Ltd and another [2013] EWHC 2341 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 61 (Aug)

The duty of care owed by an occupier was in principle capable of extending to dangers arising out of the acts or defaults of third parties visiting the occupier's premises, whether as employees, sub-contractors, licensees or even trespassers, and even when such dangers arose from normally innocuous activities, such as driving or parking vehicles. However, whether or not such a duty arose on the facts of a particular case would depend on the particular facts as found. In a case such as the instant case, the court should proceed on the basis that an occupier was not, without more, liable for the negligence of an invitee which caused damage to persons or property on adjacent land, particularly where that licensee was engaged in an activity not dangerous in itself such as driving or parking a vehicle, which he might be expected to do carefully. However, if the occupier was or should reasonably have been aware of a reasonably foreseeable risk of danger

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

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

NLJ Career Profile: Daniel Burbeary, Michelman Robinson

Daniel Burbeary, office managing partner of Michelman Robinson, discusses launching in London, the power of the law, and what the kitchen can teach us about litigating

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

Joelson—Jennifer Mansoor

West End firm strengthens employment and immigration team with partner hire

JMW—Belinda Brooke

JMW—Belinda Brooke

Employment and people solutions offering boosted by partner hire

NEWS

The Court of Appeal has slammed the brakes on claimants trying to swap defendants after limitation has expired. In Adcamp LLP v Office Properties and BDB Pitmans v Lee [2026] EWCA Civ 50, it overturned High Court rulings that had allowed substitutions under s 35(6)(b) of the Limitation Act 1980, reports Sarah Crowther of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ

Cheating in driving tests is surging—and courts are responding firmly. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort Law School charts a rise in impersonation and tech-assisted fraud, with 2,844 attempts recorded in a year
As AI-generated ‘deepfake’ images proliferate, the law may already have the tools to respond. In NLJ this week, Jon Belcher of Excello Law argues that such images amount to personal data processing under UK GDPR
In a striking financial remedies ruling, the High Court cut a wife’s award by 40% for coercive and controlling behaviour. Writing in NLJ this week, Chris Bryden and Nicole Wallace of 4 King’s Bench Walk analyse LP v MP [2025] EWFC 473
A €60.9m award to Kylian Mbappé has refocused attention on football’s controversial ‘ethics bonus’ clauses. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Estelle Ivanova of Valloni Attorneys at Law examines how such provisions sit within French labour law
back-to-top-scroll