Sutton v Syston Rugby Football Club Ltd

An occupier’s duty to inspect a sports pitch before play is measured by reasonable care in the circumstances. For rugby, a coach or organiser should walk over the whole pitch, or an agreed part where several inspect, at a reasonable walking pace. A perimeter walk or merely cursory inspection is insufficient. The standard should be uniform across the pitch. The claimant must also prove causation on the balance of probabilities. A breach does not establish liability where the evidence does not show that the inspection would probably have revealed the hazard. The standard should remain practical and should not make ordinary sporting activity unduly vulnerable to excessive judicial interference.

A 16½-year-old player was injured during touch or tag rugby training when he fell onto a broken plastic cricket boundary-marker stub below the level of the grass. The Club admitted that it owed an occupier’s duty of care and that no general pitch inspection had occurred, but disputed the required degree of inspection and causation.

Milton Keynes County Court held that an inspection should cover all or most of the pitch at a reasonable walking pace, with additional attention at the touch-down ends, and found the breach causative. Damages were agreed at £54,000. The Club appealed, arguing that a quick or less detailed inspection was sufficient and that the hazard would not have been found. The central issues were the proper inspection standard and whether causation had been proved.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. The respondent had not proved that a reasonable inspection would probably have revealed the plastic stub.

1. Inspection standard. The Court accepted that the pitch should be inspected before a game or training session. The appropriate standard was a walk over the pitch at a reasonable walking pace by a coach, match organiser, or someone acting on their behalf. Where several coaches or organisers were available, they could divide the pitch into agreed parts. A limited inspection around the perimeter would not discharge the duty.
2. Uniformity of standard. The inspection standard applied to the pitch as a whole. It was wrong to require a more careful inspection at touch-down ends merely because players might dive or fall there. Different standards for different parts of the pitch were unnecessarily complicated, particularly because the session could have been followed by full-match training involving tackles anywhere on the pitch.
3. Practicality. The Court noted that rugby was a desirable activity within section 1 of Compensation Act 2006, and that the provision was not suggested to alter the common-law position. The law should not impose standards too difficult for ordinary coaches and match organisers to meet.
4. Causation. A claimant bears the burden of proving that the breach caused the claimed loss: see Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Service [2003] 1 AC 32. Causation is a question of mixed law and fact. The trial judge’s finding was not decisive because it was affected by the erroneous inspection standard and was expressed with limited confidence. The appellate court therefore assessed the evidence by reference to the correct standard.
5. Application and costs. The stub was below the grass. The injured player and a team-mate had not seen it, and the evidence did not establish that a reasonable walking inspection would probably have detected it. Causation therefore failed. The appellant’s costs were summarily assessed at £12,500.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The appeal from Milton Keynes County Court was allowed. The Court rejected the additional inspection standard for the touch-down ends and held that causation had not been proved.
• Milton Keynes County Court: His Honour Judge Horowitz QC found that the pitch inspection was inadequate and that the breach caused the injury. Damages were agreed at £54,000.