Key Facts
- •Claimant (TC) suffered a serious rugby injury at school (Defendant).
- •The claim is not about a reckless tackle but about the school's alleged negligence in allowing TC to play.
- •TC alleges inadequate risk assessment, lack of parental consent, and failure to remove him from the game after a hand injury.
- •The school denies negligence and relies on expert evidence supporting TC's suitability for the team.
- •Joint expert witnesses largely agree that TC was fit to play and that the school's risk assessments were adequate.
- •The school did not have a documented risk assessment for the relevant year, but expert witnesses found that the process was sufficient.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment may be granted if a party has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason for a trial.
CPR 24.3
A 'realistic' claim is one that carries some degree of conviction, more than merely arguable.
Swain v Hillman [1999] EWCA Civ 3053, ED&F Man Liquid Products v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472
The court should avoid a 'mini-trial' on summary judgment applications but can evaluate evidence and draw conclusions.
Swain v Hillman, ED&F Man Liquid Products v Patel, King v Stiefel [2021] EWHC 1045
The standard of care owed by a teacher is that of a 'reasonably careful parent'.
Chittock v Woodbridge School [2003] EWCA Civ 915
A teacher is not negligent if they choose an option within a reasonable range of options for a reasonable teacher.
Chittock v Woodbridge School [2003] EWCA Civ 915
Causation must be established: the injury must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence.
Eaton v The Auto-Cycle Union Ltd and others [2022] EWHC 2642
Outcomes
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Defendant.
The Claimant had no real prospect of success on any of his claims. The expert evidence overwhelmingly supported the Defendant's position that TC was fit to play, that the school's risk assessment processes were adequate (or any deficiencies were not causative), and that the coach's decisions were within a reasonable range of options. The Claimant's arguments regarding parental consent and the coach's failure to remove TC from the game were deemed unarguable.