Court confirms Council’s highways repair plan gone to ‘pot’!

legal updates

The case was brought by an injured jogger who hurt himself when he fell over a pothole

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

The Court of Appeal has (albeit narrowly) ruled that a local council did not act quickly enough in repairing a pothole – even though it did so the next working day.

The case was brought by an injured jogger who hurt himself when he fell over a pothole one Saturday evening in January (some years previously).

The council had been notified of the pothole by a member of the public at 4.20pm the Friday before.  The highways inspector first saw the complaint the following Monday. It was repaired that same day.

The jogger complained that the council had failed in its duty of care to repair the pothole within a reasonable timescale following notification and it was not acceptable for it to have been unattended to over the weekend.  The council defended itself by saying that it had a statutory defence under the Highways Act that it had repaired the pothole within a reasonable time period.

The jogger initially lost his case.  On appeal he won.  And this Court of Appeal decision was the result of the council’s further challenge.

By a majority decision the Court of Appeal ruled that they should have done more to ensure that the pothole was repaired sooner.

As one of the judges disagreed with the decision it will be interesting to know if the Council further appeals to the Supreme Court. 

One can only imagine the amount of tax-payers’ money that has been spent in defending this case.

HowdenCompetitive, comprehensive, quick

One of the largest independent specialist motor trade brokers in the UK. Our extensive history of supplying insurance to the motor trade means we understand your business needs. By partnering with a specialist insurance broker like us, you get exactly what you need to protect your business.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

An eventful small claims hearing

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.