The Council appealed against a finding of liability under the 1957 Act after the claimant was injured after jumping over a fence to flee hving to pay a taxi, and falling down a steep slope onto a car park. The land had been licenced to the supermarket, but had reverted. The land appeared to have had recreational use.
Held: The judge had erred in treating the claimant as a licensee to whom a duty was owed under the 1957 Act: ‘foreseeability was not the relevant test. In deciding whether the claimant was a licensee, the question was, not whether his activity or similar activities might have been foreseen, but whether they had been impliedly assented to by the Council. In my view there was no evidence to support such a finding. When a council licenses the public to use its land for recreational purposes, it is consenting to normal recreational activities, carrying normal risks. An implied licence for general recreational activity cannot, in my view, be stretched to cover any form of activity, however reckless.’
Longmore, Carnwath, Hughes LJJ
 EWCA Civ 860,  PIQR P18,  NPC 89
Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
England and Wales
Cited – The Calgarth CA 1927
A ship foundered while using a navigable channel other than in the ordinary way of navigation. Scrutton LJ said: ‘When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the bannisters, you invite him to . .
Cited – Hillen and Pettigrew v ICI (Alkali) Ltd HL 1936
Stevedores who were lawfully on a barge for the purpose of discharging it, nevertheless became trespassers when they went onto an inadequately supported hatch cover in order to unload some of the cargo. They knew that they ought not to use the . .
Cited – Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council and others HL 31-Jul-2003
The claimant dived into a lake, severely injuring himself. The council appealed, arguing that it owed him no duty of care under the Act since he was a trespasser. It had placed warning signs to deter swimmers.
Held: The council’s appeal . .
Cited – Edwards v Railway Executive HL 1952
A boy aged 9 was injured on a railway line. He had been warned not to go onto the land and had found his way through a defective fence. He claimed in negligence. The fence had been breached by children with some frequency for many years before the . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.421108