Infrequently used highways

The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in a case that clarifies the test for dangerousness in respect of defects on infrequently used highways, writes Mark Eisen.

In a helpful decision for local authorities the Court of Appeal in Melvin Griffths v Gwynedd Council [2015] EWCA CIV144 has applied established principles to highways claims, in particular that the test of dangerousness is informed to some extent by what the public at large would expect the highways authority to do to ensure repair of such roads, particularly at a time when resources are scarce. 

The facts

The claim concerned a cyclist on a remote highway high in the mountains in North Wales. As he rounded a bend and was travelling downhill, he encountered some debris in the road which he attempted to avoid by steering to the left hand edge of the road.  In doing so he encountered a defect which comprised of large chunk of tarmac which had broken away from the edge of the road.  This caused him to be thrown over his handlebars. The claimant sued the local council for breach of section 41 of the Highways Act 1980. It was argued that this type of defect was commonplace in rural locations such as this.

The decision

In the first instance the court held that despite the defect falling into the authority’s own category 1 classification, the defect was not dangerous so as to amount to a breach of s. 41. The claimant challenged the decision and the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and determined that:

1. The nature of the road and its use are relevant factors in considering whether the defect on it is dangerous.
2. The reasonable expectations of the public as to the standard of maintenance of the highway service is a relevant consideration – the court held that the burden which a finding of dangerousness would impose on the authority was a relevant and indeed an obligatory consideration in light of the decision in Mills v Barnsley MBC. 
3. The highways authority’s own intervention levels do not determine the dangerousness of a defect.  

What this means for you

This decision will come as good news to local authorities with ever more constrained budgets for highways maintenance. It is a helpful reminder in particular that the test of dangerousness is informed to some extent by what the public at large would expect the highways authority to do to ensure repair of such roads, particularly at a time when resources are scarce.

The judgment was a helpful application of established principles to highways claims arising from accidents in remote rural locations. It is very rare that a highways case makes it to the Court of Appeal. Local authorities will be able to draw upon this case in their defence in future, similar matters.

In his summary, the judge concluded that “a defect in a road in the highways occasionally used by cyclists may not be dangerous when it would be so if the road was in central London and was habitually used by cycle races involving large numbers of competitors.”

Mark Eisen is a partner at BLM and worked for Gwynedd Council in this case. He can be contacted This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..