Thomas Oliver Carus v Stonyhurst

A defendant may obtain summary judgment where the claimant has no realistic prospect of establishing a causative breach and there is no compelling reason for a trial. The court may evaluate evidence and documents, while avoiding a mini-trial, where the material fundamentally undermines the claim.

In a school sports injury claim, a coach’s decision whether to substitute an injured or nervous pupil may fall within the reasonable range of professional judgment. A defendant is not liable for an injury unrelated to the risk which the alleged breach was intended to address. Deficiencies in a risk-assessment process will not justify a trial where the evidence establishes that they could not have caused the injury.

The claimant, aged 16, was seriously injured during a school rugby match. He alleged that the defendant school and its head of rugby were negligent in selecting him for the first XV, failing to obtain parental consent, failing to assess his suitability and injuries, and failing to remove him from the field.

The defendant applied for summary judgment under CPR 24.3. Disclosure, witness statements and expert evidence were complete, and the parties agreed that no further evidence would be available at trial. The central issues were whether the pleaded breaches had a realistic prospect of success and whether any breach could have caused the injury.

1. Summary judgment test. Under CPR 24.3, summary judgment may be entered where a claim or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial. The court must distinguish a realistic prospect from a fanciful one and must avoid conducting a mini-trial, but may analyse evidence and contemporaneous documents where the claim has no real substance. On the evidence available, the court could determine the issues summarily.
2. Risk assessments and selection. Regulation 15.3.6 of the RFU Regulations permitted an under-17 player to play up an age grade, subject to an appropriate assessment and the specified approval requirements. The court assumed, for the purposes of the application, that the Age Grade Rugby Guidance required parental involvement in school rugby. Although no contemporary risk assessment for the first XV had been disclosed, the claimant’s experience, size, skill and participation in the South African tour and the preceding match established that he was suitable for selection. Any deficiency in the assessment process had no causative effect. Those allegations were bound to fail.
3. Parental consent. The contemporaneous documents and witness evidence showed that the claimant’s parents knew he had been selected and had previously consented to his participation in rugby involving older pupils. The allegation that they would not have consented to his playing in the first XV had no realistic prospect of success.
4. Failure to substitute. Applying the standard of the reasonably careful parent and the range of reasonable options available to a teacher, the coach’s decision to allow the claimant to continue playing was not arguably negligent. The video and expert evidence showed no clear indication that he was out of his depth or required immediate substitution. The hand injury did not cause or contribute to the later injury.
5. Causation and scope of duty. Any duty arising from the claimant’s hand injury or lack of confidence did not extend to protecting him from an injury caused by an otherwise legitimate tackle and unrelated to those matters. The relevant allegations therefore failed both on breach and on causation or scope of duty.
6. Disposition. Summary judgment was entered for the defendant. The trial was vacated and the defendant was awarded the costs of the application.

First instance decision. No prior appellate history is stated in the judgment.