header-logo header-logo

Negligence

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

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

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

Hamlins—Maddox Legal

London firm announces acquisition of corporate team

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Ward Hadaway—Nik Tunley

Head of corporate appointed following Teesside merger

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Taylor Rose—Russell Jarvis

Firm expands into banking and finance sector with newly appointed head of banking

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll