Debbie O'Connell v The Ministry of Defence

Under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, the likelihood of severe injury is assessed prospectively. “Likely” means reasonably to be expected, not merely possible, and the assessment depends on the animal and the circumstances of the incident. The injury actually suffered cannot itself establish that severe injury was likely.

The statutory characteristic need not be an abnormal propensity of the particular animal. Bucking may be a characteristic normally found only in particular circumstances. Knowledge may be established through knowledge of the relevant characteristics of the species. A claim may be fundamentally dishonest where dishonesty goes to the extent of disability and materially inflates liability or quantum.

The claimant, a Royal Horse Artillery gunner, was injured when a horse bucked during a riding lesson. She claimed in negligence and under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971, alleging unsuitable equipment, an unsuitable horse and inadequate instruction.

The defendant denied liability and alleged that the claimant had fundamentally misrepresented her disability, engaging section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 and CPR 44.16. The trial concerned the circumstances of the fall, the statutory requirements for strict liability, and the claimant’s honesty in presenting her injury, functional limitations, vehicle use, horse-related activities and employment.

1. Negligence. The claimant failed to establish breach or causation. Her boots were oversized but were not shown to be unsuitable, and neither their size nor her stirrup position caused the fall. The evidence established that Jazz was suitable for a novice rider. The allegation that the claimant had been negligently required to remount was rejected because the court found that there had been only one fall.
2. Animals Act 1971. The court adopted a sequential approach to section 2(2). The second limb of section 2(2)(a) requires a prospective assessment of whether severe injury was reasonably to be expected. The assessment must consider the actual animal and the relevant circumstances, including the horse’s height, speed, the nature of the buck, the rider’s preparation, protective equipment and the landing surface. The injury actually suffered cannot be used to establish its prior likelihood.
3. On the facts, severe injury was not reasonably to be expected. Jazz was trotting, the buck was neither small nor substantial, the surface was relatively forgiving and the claimant had protective equipment. The claim therefore failed under section 2(2)(a).
4. The court nevertheless considered section 2(2)(b). Bucking was capable of being a characteristic not normally found in horses except at particular times or in particular circumstances. The relevant circumstances were those identified by the equestrian experts, including loss of balance, lack of control and the movement of the other horses. The defendant’s proposed requirement that the characteristic be probable in those circumstances was rejected.
5. Knowledge under section 2(2)(c) could have been established by knowledge that horses generally display the relevant characteristic in the particular circumstances; knowledge of the particular horse’s previous behaviour was unnecessary. Had liability otherwise arisen, the defendant would have had the requisite knowledge.
6. Fundamental dishonesty. Dishonesty was assessed subjectively as to the claimant’s knowledge or belief, followed by the objective standards of ordinary decent people. The claimant’s evidence about her disability, horse-related responsibilities, vehicle and employment was dishonest. It went to the heart of the claim because it materially inflated general damages, loss of earnings and care claims. Permission was granted under CPR 44.16 to enforce any costs order to the full extent.
7. The claim was dismissed.

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