LYDIA DEANE v PAUL JAMES BARKER & ORS.

In determining foreign law, the court must first apply a clear and unambiguous statutory definition according to its ordinary literal meaning. Secondary interpretative tools arise only where the wording is ambiguous or produces an absurd result. Foreign-law findings are evidential and binding only between the parties to the particular claim.

Building-regulation compliance is relevant to breach of duty but is not itself determinative. A preliminary issue should generally address a decisive or potentially decisive legal question, based on agreed or assumed facts, and should be ordered proportionately.

The claimant suffered a serious injury after falling on a spiral staircase at a holiday villa in Spain. She brought claims in negligence, contract and under Spanish law against the villa owners, their insurer and the villa manager.

The court tried three preliminary issues concerning whether works to the villa were refurbishment or maintenance, whether the staircase was for restricted or general use under the Spanish Technical Building Code, and whether application or breach of that Code would itself establish breach of duty.

1. Preliminary issues. The court observed that a preliminary issue should ordinarily concern a decisive or potentially decisive question, usually one of law, determined on agreed or assumed facts. The issues ordered here were disproportionate and did not determine the underlying claims. Compliance with the Technical Building Code was only a factor in assessing breach of duty.
2. Foreign-law methodology. Foreign law is a question of fact for the court to determine. The court should be given the relevant legal text and evidence of the foreign system’s rules of interpretation. Where the wording is clear and unambiguous, the literal meaning must be applied. Only where it is ambiguous, including where a literal meaning would produce an absurd result, may the court use secondary tools of construction.
3. Refurbishment. The works were refurbishment rather than maintenance under Annex III of the CTE. There was no evidence that they were periodic works preventing deterioration or specific repairs intended to maintain compliance with basic building requirements. The CTE therefore applied.
4. Use of the staircase. The staircase was not for restricted use. The villa accommodated up to 12 people, whereas the definition required circulation to be limited to a maximum of 10 people. Short-term holiday renters were not habitual users in the relevant sense. The staircase was therefore subject to the general-use requirements.
5. Effect of the CTE. Application or non-compliance with the CTE did not itself establish breach of duty in English or Spanish law. It was a relevant, but non-determinative, factor in assessing the standard of care and breach.
6. Consequences. The court found breaches concerning the absence of a handrail and excessive and non-uniform step heights. Guidance could not alter the mandatory terms of the CTE, although guidance concerning tolerances might remain relevant to the wider assessment of breach. The matter was to return for case management concerning duty, breach and causation.