Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000]

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council [2000] 1 WLR 1082 is a significant case that delves into the foreseeability of harm in negligence claims, particularly when the claimant is a child. The central issue revolved around the duty of care owed by the Council regarding an abandoned boat on their property. The case explored the foreseeability of harm and the extent to which the defendant could be held liable for the injury suffered by the claimant.

The Council neglected to take action to remove an old, abandoned boat on its land. Two teenagers, including the claimant, undertook the repair of the boat, employing a car jack to prop it up. The incident occurred when the boat wobbled, causing it to topple from the car jack, resulting in the claimant sustaining a broken back and paraplegia. Subsequently, the claimant sought damages under Section 2(2) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, alleging a breach of the defendant’s duty of care.

Initially, the High Court ruled in favour of the claimant, asserting that it was reasonably foreseeable that children would meddle with the boat and suffer injury as a consequence. However, the Court of Appeal adopted a more restrictive stance, acknowledging the duty to remove the boat due to the foreseeable risk of injury but contending that it was not reasonably foreseeable that children would prop up the boat for repairs and consequently suffer harm.

The House of Lords, upon hearing the appeal, ultimately sided with the claimant, finding the defendant liable for the accident and resulting injury due to foreseeability. In this decision, two key perspectives emerged from Lords Steyn and Hoffmann. Lord Steyn emphasised that foreseeability should be evaluated by closely examining the specific circumstances of each case. He suggested that The Wagon Mound (No 1) [1961] does not mandate that both the precise manner of injury causation and the extent of injury must always be reasonably foreseeable.

Lord Hoffmann added valuable insights, highlighting the general trend in cases involving children. He noted that when a defendant's negligence is established, and the defendant could have taken measures to avert the injury, the defendant is likely to be held liable. Lord Hoffmann underscored the importance of recognising children's ingenuity in finding unexpected ways to cause mischief, emphasising that this factor should not be underestimated in determining foreseeability.

In conclusion, Jolley v Sutton LBC reaffirms the principles set out in prior cases, particularly Hughes v Lord Advocate [1963], and underscores the significance of context-specific evaluations of foreseeability. The case establishes that a duty of care may extend to the materialisation of relatively small risks, especially when the claimant is a child, and their inventive behaviour is taken into consideration.
Back to blog
UOL Case Bank

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law


    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory


    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.