Eva Cobija Sintes v London Borough of Tower Hamlets

A public authority that licenses or supervises activity by third parties does not ordinarily owe a common-law duty to protect road users from harm caused by a third party. The claimant must show that the authority made matters worse, or that a recognised exception such as assumption of responsibility or special control applies. Self-imposed inspection procedures and statutory enforcement powers do not, without more, create such a duty. If an inspection duty is assumed, breach must have occurred before the accident and must be shown to have caused it. In nuisance, a non-occupying licensing authority is not liable merely because a third party created an obstruction within a regulated market. Adoption or continuation requires proof of knowledge and a reasonable opportunity to abate.

Ms Sintes was injured after tripping over market-stall poles left on a public footpath at Whitechapel Market. She sued Tower Hamlets in negligence and public nuisance, alleging that its licensing, management, inspection and enforcement functions made it responsible for the obstruction. Quantum had been agreed, and the County Court at Central London tried liability only. On 30 July 2025, Deputy District Judge Gwynfor Evans found for Ms Sintes and granted permission to appeal. Tower Hamlets appealed on duty of care, the duration of the obstruction, inspection periods, breach and causation. The central questions were whether the council owed a private-law duty in respect of a third-party obstruction and whether it was liable in nuisance for creating, adopting or continuing that nuisance.

Disposition. Stuart-Smith LJ, with whom Yip LJ and Bean LJ agreed, allowed the appeal, set aside the County Court judgment and directed that judgment be entered for Tower Hamlets.

1. Negligence. Applying Tindall v Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police [2024] UKSC 33 and related authority, the accident resulted from a third-party trader’s conduct. The relevant baseline was what would have happened if Tower Hamlets had done nothing. Licensing the market and having suitable licence conditions did not make matters worse. The Standard Operating Procedures and Processes were internal arrangements for supervising compliance and did not themselves create a private-law duty. There was no assumption of responsibility comparable to the relationships in Phelps v Hillingdon BC or Barrett v Enfield LBC, and no special level of control comparable to Dorset Yacht v Home Office. The negligence claim therefore failed.
2. Finding of fact. Applying Volpi v Volpi [2022] EWCA Civ 464, the DDJ’s finding that the poles had been present since 2.45 pm was plainly wrong. The evidence showed no specific time and was consistent with the poles having been placed only minutes before the accident.
3. Alternative grounds. Assuming a private-law duty, section 35(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 permitted removal when an individual trader ceased trading, not only when the market closed. Ground 3 was dismissed. Ground 4 succeeded because the inspection period had not expired at the time of the accident and causation could not be proved.
4. Nuisance. Ali v Bradford MBC [2010] EWCA Civ 1282 did not provide complete immunity, but it confirmed that knowledge of an obstruction and an inspection system do not, without more, amount to continuing a nuisance. Tower Hamlets neither created nor permitted the obstruction in any legally relevant sense. Adoption or continuation also failed for want of proof of knowledge and opportunity to abate. The nuisance claim was dismissed.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): In [2026] EWCA Civ 752, the appeal was allowed, the County Court order was set aside and judgment was directed for Tower Hamlets.
2. County Court at Central London: On 30 July 2025, Deputy District Judge Gwynfor Evans found for Ms Sintes on liability and granted Tower Hamlets permission to appeal.