Madden v Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Carswell LCJ |
| Judgment Date | 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] NICA 2 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Northern Ireland) |
| Date | 10 January 2003 |
1
Neutral Citation No. [2003] NICA 2 Ref:
NICC3779
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
10.01.2003
(subject to editorial corrections)
IN HER MAJESTY’S COURT OF APPEAL IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
RHONDA MADDEN, A MINOR BY PAUL MADDEN,
HER FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND
Appellant
and
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT
FOR NORTHERN IRELAND
Respondent
________
Before: Carswell LCJ, Nicholson LJ and Coghlin J
NICHOLSON LJ
[1] This appeal raises the question: to whom does a road authority owe a
duty of care for non-feasance under Article 8 of the Roads (NI) Order 1993
(other than a pedestrian on foot) and if so, what is the nature and extent of
that duty?
[2] Before the Roads (Liability of Road Authorities for Neglect) (Northern
Ireland) 1966 Act came into force a road authority was not liable for non-
feasance.
[3] The Act of 1966 provided by section 1(1) that any rule of law which
operated to exempt a road authority from liability for non-repair of roads was
thereby abrogated. Sub-section 1(2) provided a defence to an action in
respect of damage resulting from their failure to maintain a road maintainable
by them. For the purposes of a defence under sub-section (2) the court was
required in particular to have regard to a number of matters set out in sub-
section (3).
[4] The Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1980 repealed the 1966 Act. It
provided by Article 2(2) definitions of “carriageway”, “footway” and “road”.
“Road” was defined as meaning a public road, that is to say, a road which is
maintainable by the Department [the Department of the Environment], and
included:–
To continue reading
Request your trial