Adam Weitzman: Court of Appeal judgment clarifies Highway Authority’s duty to repair

The Court of Appeal gave judgment today in the case of Judith Valentine v Transport for London.

This important decision clarifies a previously grey area of law relating to the extent of a Highway Authority’s duty to repair under section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980.   Adam Weitzman of 7 Bedford Row was counsel for Transport for London. 

The claimant was the executor of her husband’s estate. He had tragically died when his motorcycle skidded on an extensive patch of gravel and loose debris on the surface of the A4.  The claimant argued that the presence of this material was a breach of the highway authority’s statutory duty under section 41, in this case Transport for London.  The argument was rejected both at first instance and in the Court of Appeal.  In the leading judgment Hughes LJ held it to be inescapable that the duty to maintain a road under section 41 did not extend to removing surface-lying material, obstructions or spillages, whether or not they resulted in some danger.  Rather the statutory duty to repair was confined to the structure and fabric of the road.  He held that this conclusion was in keeping with the reasoning of Lord Denning in Haydon v Kent CC [1978] 1QB 343 and Lord Hoffman in Goodes v East Sussex CC [2000] 1 WLR 1356.

This decision is a further welcome clarification and limitation of the extent of the statutory duty on a highway authority.  Adam Weitzman is a specialist in this area and regularly represents local authorities.  Other recent cases in which he has appeared for the local authority include Yektin v Newham London Borough Council  TF [2010] EWCA Civ 776 v Lewisham London Borough Council [2009] 27/3/99