G4S Care And Justice Services (UK) Ltd v Manley

Section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 requires consideration of whether the occupier took such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to ensure that the visitor was reasonably safe using the premises for the permitted purpose. The inquiry is not confined to whether the premises were objectively unsafe, or whether the relevant danger caused the accident. Where the alleged breach consists of a failure to respond to changing circumstances, the occupier’s response and the visitor’s particular vulnerability may be material. The standard remains fact-sensitive. A finding that a response was unreasonably slow in circumstances involving a known mobility problem does not necessarily impose an unduly high standard of care.

G4S appealed to the High Court against a decision of HHJ Bidder QC in the Cardiff County Court dated 25 August 2015. The county court found G4S liable under section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 after a power failure left a prison cell without its normal lighting. The claimant, a recently operated prisoner with mobility difficulties, fell while moving to the toilet.

The appeal alleged that the judge had failed to ask whether the cell was objectively unsafe and had imposed an excessively high standard of care. The central issue was whether the alleged failure to restore power promptly, in light of the claimant’s circumstances, constituted a breach of the statutory common duty of care.

The appeal was dismissed.

1. The statutory question under section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 is whether the occupier took such care as was reasonable in all the circumstances to see that the visitor would be reasonably safe using the premises for the purpose for which he was permitted to be there.
2. The objective safety of the premises is relevant, but it is not the whole statutory inquiry where the alleged breach concerns a failure to respond reasonably to circumstances affecting the visitor’s safe use of the premises. The decisions in West Sussex County Council v Pierce [2014] P.I.Q.R. 101 and Manning v Hope The Times 18 February 2000 did not require a different result. Those cases concerned the physical condition of premises or fixtures. This case concerned the failure to restore power within a reasonable time.
3. The county court judge expressly applied the section 2(2) test. He was entitled to find that the claimant had reported both the outage and his recent hospital discharge and mobility problems, that this urgency should have been passed to the senior officer, and that the power could and should have been restored sooner. The failure to do so meant that reasonable care had not been taken to ensure the claimant’s safety in using the cell.
4. The judge did not treat causation alone as establishing breach. He separately considered the statutory duty and then found that the breach caused the accident.
5. The conclusion did not impose an unduly high standard of care. It was based on the particular facts, including what the officers knew or ought to have known and the time reasonably required to restore the power. It did not require a general system of detailed medical risk assessments for all prisoners.

The county court’s judgment was one it was entitled to reach on the evidence.

• Cardiff County Court: HHJ Bidder QC found G4S in breach of section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and awarded agreed damages of £3,750, with interest and costs, on 25 August 2015.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): the appeal was dismissed.