Knight v Rentokil Initial Facilities Services

A cleaning system may be well organised yet fail the duty to keep premises reasonably safe if it lacks sufficient and systematic observation to identify spillages promptly. The adequacy of inspection depends on the risk created by a spillage and the nature and use of the premises; a low accident rate alone may provide limited evidence. Under Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810, a defendant avoids liability only by showing that the accident must, or probably would, have occurred even with a proper system. Evidence that improved inspections might have detected the spillage does not satisfy that test.

The claimant slipped in water near a luggage carousel at Stansted Airport. Rentokil, the second defendant, had contracted to provide cleaning services, while BAA, the first defendant, operated supplementary patrol and reporting arrangements.

Cambridge County Court, by an order dated 17 June 2008, found Rentokil liable on the issue of liability, dismissed the claim against BAA, and made a costs order requiring Rentokil to pay part of the claimant’s costs against BAA. Hughes LJ refused permission to appeal in writing. Rentokil renewed its application, arguing that the cleaning system was adequate, that the judge imposed too high a duty, that the evidence of accident frequency was insufficiently considered, and that Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd had been misapplied.

1. Permission refused. The appellant had no realistic prospect of successfully challenging the judge’s findings or the resulting liability.
2. The judge was entitled to find that the system was inadequate for the particular risk. The cleaners followed a rotating route, and BAA personnel also patrolled and reported spillages. However, the supplementary patrol was a visual rather than systematic inspection. In a large, busy area used by passengers distracted by luggage and trolleys, a spillage created a substantial risk. A generally good system could therefore remain insufficient without more regular and systematic observation.
3. The evidence of approximately two spillages a day and only a small number of accidents was limited. There was no evidence from comparable terminals, and the judge’s assessment of the risk was open to her on the evidence.
4. The causation principle in Ward v Tesco Stores Ltd [1976] 1 WLR 810 was applicable. Once the relevant accident was established, the defendant had to meet the high standard of showing that it must, or on the balance of probability would likely, have occurred even with a proper and adequate system. The fact that a patrol had occurred about 20 minutes earlier did not establish that result. A more frequent and higher-quality inspection might have detected the spillage.
5. The costs order was also open to the judge. It was a form of Sanderson order referred to in CPR 44.3.8, because late disclosure could reasonably have affected the claimant’s decision to sue both defendants.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): on 14 October 2008, Arden LJ and Moore-Bick LJ refused the renewed application for permission to appeal: [2008] EWCA Civ 1219.
• Cambridge County Court: HHJ Plumstead found against Rentokil on liability, dismissed the claim against BAA, and made the associated costs order on 17 June 2008.
• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Hughes LJ had previously refused permission to appeal for detailed written reasons.