Hughes (A Minor) v Newry and Mourne District Council

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, a minor at the time of injury, sustained a major injury to his left eye on 1st November 2007 at a public playing field located in a residential area of a town. The injury occurred when the plaintiff and three friends encountered a discarded firework at the site of a recent Halloween bonfire event held the previous night. One of the children ignited the firework, which exploded causing serious injuries to the plaintiff and lesser injuries to two others. The plaintiff brought a claim against the defendant, the local district council, owners and occupiers of the playing fields, alleging breach of duty of care under the Occupiers Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. The plaintiff contended that the defendant knew or ought to have known about the risk posed by unexploded fireworks left on the premises after the bonfire and failed to take reasonable steps to inspect and make the area safe before allowing children access.

The defendant denied liability, asserting that the bonfire was organised by unauthorised individuals and that due to significant anti-social behaviour, threats, and violence from youths in the area, it was not feasible or safe for council employees or contractors to inspect or clear the site immediately after the bonfire. The defendant argued that any clean-up had to await a reduction in hostility. The parties agreed on damages subject to a ruling on liability, and the hearing focused solely on the question of liability.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the defendant, as occupier of the playing fields, owed and breached a duty of care to the plaintiff under Article 3 of the Occupiers Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 by failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent injury from unexploded fireworks left on the premises after the bonfire.
2. Whether the defendant’s failure to inspect and clear the playing fields prior to the plaintiff’s injury was excused by the circumstances of anti-social behaviour and threats that made such precautions impracticable or unsafe.

Arguments of the Parties

Plaintiff's Arguments

• The defendant had a duty of care as occupier of the playing fields to ensure the safety of lawful visitors, including children.
• The defendant knew or ought to have known about the risk posed by unexploded fireworks left after the Halloween bonfire.
• The defendant failed to inspect or take reasonable steps to remove dangerous items such as fireworks and broken glass before allowing children onto the premises.
• This failure directly caused the plaintiff’s serious injuries.

Defendant's Arguments

• The bonfire was organised by unauthorised individuals without council involvement or control.
• Due to significant anti-social behaviour, threats, intimidation, and violence from local youths, it was not safe or feasible for council employees or contractors to enter the playing fields immediately after the bonfire.
• The council had to wait until hostility diminished before conducting any inspection or clean-up operations.
• The defendant was powerless to prevent the use of the land for the bonfire or to control the dangerous conduct of attendees.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the facts in light of the defendant’s duty as occupier under the Occupiers Liability (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 to ensure reasonable safety for lawful visitors. The court acknowledged the defendant’s knowledge of the risk posed by unexploded fireworks and other hazards left after the traditional Halloween bonfire, which was a known annual event attracting large crowds, including children. However, the court gave significant weight to the evidence of widespread anti-social behaviour, including violence and intimidation against council employees and contractors, which made it unsafe and impractical for the defendant to carry out inspections or clean-up immediately after the bonfire. The court accepted the advice of the police inspector that council staff should not enter the area while hostile youths remained present, as this would have risked further harm to staff and likely forced retreat without achieving safety. The court found that the defendant’s failure to take precautions before the plaintiff’s injury was not due to neglect but the unavoidable consequence of circumstances beyond its control. Therefore, the defendant did not breach its duty of care.

Holding and Implications

Judgment was entered for the defendant.

The court held that although the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff, the breach was not established because the defendant’s failure to inspect and clear the playing fields prior to the injury was excused by the reasonable anticipation of violence and intimidation that made such precautions unachievable at the relevant time. The direct effect is that the plaintiff’s claim for damages on liability grounds was dismissed. No new legal precedent was established by this decision.