Uren v Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd & Ors

Whether precautions are required for a recreational or competitive activity depends on a balance between the risk of serious injury and the activity’s benefits, including its challenge and enjoyment. The existence of a small risk does not automatically establish a breach of the duty of care. A defendant need not remove an activity’s essential character by prohibiting a form of participation where the risk is remote and reasonable precautions have been taken. Risk assessments must address the way an activity is actually conducted, but an inadequate assessment does not itself determine liability.

The claimant, an RAF serviceman, suffered catastrophic spinal injuries while taking part in a relay game involving entry into a shallow inflatable pool at an RAF Health and Fun Day. He alleged that Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and the Ministry of Defence were liable in negligence and for breach of statutory duties. The trial concerned liability only. The central issue was whether either defendant had failed to take reasonable measures to make the game safe, particularly by failing to prohibit head-first entry into the pool.

1. Liability. The claim against Corporate Leisure (UK) Ltd and the Ministry of Defence failed. Each owed the claimant a common-law duty to take reasonable care for his safety, but neither was in breach.
2. Risk assessments. Corporate Leisure’s risk assessment was defective because it did not identify the possibility of head-first entry. The Ministry’s assessments were also fatally flawed. The Ministry owed a non-delegable duty to prepare an adequate assessment and could not leave assessment of the game’s risks to Corporate Leisure. An adequate assessment required knowledge of how the game was played and how contestants might enter the pool.
3. Those deficiencies did not determine the claim. The issue was whether reasonable safety measures had been taken. The pool was not being used as a swimming pool, contestants knew that the water was shallow, and they were told to take care when entering. Entry by sliding over the side with arms outstretched was essentially horizontal and the risk of serious injury was very small.
4. Balancing risk and benefit. Enjoyable competitive activities are beneficial and are rarely risk-free. The court had to balance the level of risk against the benefits and physical challenge of the activity. The defendants were not obliged to prohibit head-first entry merely because a small risk existed, since that would have removed much of the game’s enjoyable challenge.
5. Section 1 of the Compensation Act 2006 added nothing to the common law in the circumstances. The pleaded provisions of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 raised, in substance, the same question as the common-law duty.