Disclaimer: This work was produced by one of our expert legal writers, as a learning aid to help law students with their studies.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not reflect the views of LawTeacher.net. Any information contained in this case summary does not constitute legal advice and should be treated as educational content only.

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council

384 words (2 pages) Case Summary

1st Oct 2021 Case Summary Reference this In-house law team

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Legal Case Summary

Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705

Occupiers Liability – Occupiers Liability Act 1984 – Liability to Trespassers- Obvious Danger – Duty to Warn of Danger – Implication of Licence – Contributory Negligence


Congleton Borough Council had attempted to turn a disused quarry into a beauty spot and country park by turning the quarry into an artificial lake.  The council prohibited swimming, recognising the lake to be dangerous for swimmers and had prominent signs prohibiting swimming, as well as park rangers who sought to prevent swimming.  The claimant, ignoring these signs dived in and broke his neck.  He sought damages in negligence under the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.  The Court of Appeal held that he was a trespasser and so the case fell under the Occupiers Liability Act 1984.  Under the provisions of this act, the claimant was awarded damages, but these were reduced by two-thirds under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.  The council appealed to the House of Lords.


Whether the premises created a risk that the claimant should have been able to expect protection from, even as a trespasser under s1(3)(c) Occupiers Liability Act 1984.  Whether the Council had taken such steps as were necessary to reduce the risk under s1(4) of the Act.


The appeal was allowed.  The council had no liability to the claimant.  The risk of danger was so obvious that it could be said that no risk arose from the state of the premises under s1(3) Occupiers Liability Act 1984.  Instead, the risk arose from the claimant’s own actions who voluntarily engaged in this risk.  The respondent was a man of full capacity who voluntarily engaged in an activity which had an inherent risk in it.  There was nothing inherent about the state of the premises which rendered them any more dangerous than could be expected, and no question of the council being expected to take any further steps to ensure that trespassers did not use the lake. 

Cite This Work

To export a reference to this article please select a referencing stye below:

Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.
Reference Copied to Clipboard.

Related Services

View all

Related Content

Jurisdictions / Tags

Content relating to: "UK Law"

UK law covers the laws and legislation of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. Essays, case summaries, problem questions and dissertations here are relevant to law students from the United Kingdom and Great Britain, as well as students wishing to learn more about the UK legal system from overseas.

Related Articles