Reffel v Surrey County Council [1964] 1 All ER 743
Personal injury and the duty to ensure the safety of the occupants of a school.
Facts
A 12-year-old female student at a grammar school was injured while, walking down a corridor towards the cloakroom, the cloakroom’s glass doors swung towards her. The girl had extended her hand towards the swinging door, causing her hand to go through and break the glass, and thus sustain injury. No previous injury had occurred at the site of that door. However, the local education authority’s area had previously had (11) reported incidents involving students injured by broken glass.
Issues
The issue arose as to whether the local education authority was liable for (1) breach of a statutory duty to secure the safety of the school under Section 10 of the Education Act 1944, particularly as to whether this duty was an absolute duty; as well as, (2) tortious liability for negligence at common law.
Decision/Outcome
Firstly, the Court held that the duty to secure the safety of the school premises under Section 10 of the Education Act is an absolute duty and to which an objective test applies. It was held that the the thickness of the glass of the cloakroom door, at its height, was not safe in lieu of relevant regulations, and, thus, safety was not objectively assured by the local authority. Secondly, as to the liability of the local authority at common law, it was held that the authorities owed the occupants of the premises a “duty of care” under Section 2(2) of the Occupiers Liability Act, and that injury due to the thickness of the glass was a real and foreseeable risk of which the authority was negligent. Accordingly, the local education authorities were held liable for the injury to the claimant under both statutory duty and common law.
Word Count: 299
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Reffel v Surrey County Council [1964] 1 All ER 743. The core common law principle — that occupiers owe a duty of care to visitors under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 — remains good law. Section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, as correctly cited, continues in force without material amendment.
Readers should note, however, that Section 10 of the Education Act 1944, which the article identifies as imposing an absolute duty to secure school safety, has been repealed. The Education Act 1944 was largely superseded by subsequent legislation, including the Education Act 1996, and relevant duties regarding school premises are now governed principally by the Schools Premises Regulations (currently the School Premises (England) Regulations 2012 (SI 2012/1943) and equivalent Welsh provisions). This does not affect the accuracy of the case summary itself as a description of the 1964 decision, but students should be aware that the statutory framework discussed no longer applies in its original form. The common law negligence analysis retains its broader relevance as an illustration of occupiers’ liability principles.
