Brief history of Newwalk Chambers

Find by month

Find by label


Chambers Blog

Entries matching label liability:

Magnusson -v- Park Farm Stables (2015)

27 May 2015, 11:11 by John Snell

Labels: damages, equine-law, horse-law, horse-owner, liability, spooking, the-animals-act-1971

Nathalie Bull, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, recently successfully defended a claim for damages made against the owner of a horse that had collided with a vehicle whilst spooking.  The Judge considered spooking to be normal equine behaviour, rather than an 'unusual characteristic except at particular times or circumstances' as required in order to satisfy the test under The Animals Act 1971 to create strict liability. 

Nathalie wrote an article regarding this important judgment, which has been published in 'Central Horse News Magazine' (June edition), the article can be viewed using the following link. This article will also be published in the legal journal 'Horse Law' in June ( and on the British Horse Society website (


Are horse owners strictly liable for personal injuries caused by their horses?

29 Apr 2009, 14:14 by Nathalie Bull

Labels: barrister, equine, horse, law, liability, personal-injury

In the case of Mirvahedy v Henley [2003] UKHL 16, the House of Lords confirmed that strict liability could arise under section 2(2) of the The Animals Act 1971 where personal injuries are caused by a horse which, although not behaving at the time of the accident in a way that is normal for the species, is nevertheless normal for animals of the species in the particular circumstances. In this case horses escaped from their field, bolted for a distance of over a mile onto a dual carriageway and struck a car, causing the driver to suffer serious personal injury. The horse owner was strictly liable for the damages.

However, cases following Mirvahedy, such as Freeman v Higher Park Farm [2008] All ER (D) 310, have demonstrated that decisions on strict liability are highly fact sensitive. The case of Freeman concerned a bucking horse which caused its rider to fall. This case failed on the basis of the lack of evidence that horses generally buck at particular times or in particular circumstances. In any event, the rider was excepted from liability under s.2 by s.5(2) as the rider was said to have voluntarily assumed the risk of damage by continuing to ride a horse which had already bucked during the same ride.

In conclusion, thorough factual analysis of every potential equine related personal injury claim is essential in order to determine whether a horse owner will be strictly liable for personal injuries caused by their horse.

 Written by Nathalie Bull, Barrister at New Walk Chambers, specialising in Equine Law.


Displaying entries 1-2 of 2.

The New Walk Chambers Blog page is only intended to provide an accessible forum for a general overview and discussion of the topics posted on it. It is not meant to be a substitute for taking legal advice in any particular situation and should not be so used. Neither New Walk Chambers nor the author(s) accept any responsibility for anything done or not done on the basis of the contents of the Blog page.

Website developed by Focus New Media