{"id":886616,"date":"2026-05-13T13:29:46","date_gmt":"2026-05-13T11:29:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/"},"modified":"2026-05-13T13:29:46","modified_gmt":"2026-05-13T11:29:46","slug":"rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

1. LORD JUSTICE JACKSON: This is a\u00a0renewed application for permission to appeal\u00a0to the Court of Appeal. The facts giving rise\u00a0to this application are as follows: the claimant at the material time\u00a0was a\u00a0young boy aged 6 and a\u00a0half. On 17\u00a0February\u00a02002, he went\u00a0to a\u00a0swimming pool in the company of his father and three older brothers. 2. The father\u00a0was supervising all four children but on the evidence it is quite clear that he\u00a0was not supervising the claimant, the youngest of the four children, properly. 3. The swimming pool\u00a0to which the claimant and his family went\u00a0was a\u00a0public swimming pool owned by the defendant Local\u00a0Authority,\u00a0to whom I\u00a0shall refer as "the\u00a0Council". The\u00a0council employed four lifeguards, two\u00a0of whom are relevant\u00a0to this case; a\u00a0plan which has been put before the court and helpfully explained to me by Ms\u00a0Rodway, shows that the pool is in the form of a\u00a0large "U", with a\u00a0semi-circle on the upper left corner which\u00a0was a\u00a0particularly shallow end for smaller children\u00a0to play in. 4. It can be seen from the CCTV footage, taken on 17\u00a0February, that the father of the four boys spent some time with the claimant but at 1.43pm he\u00a0was not close to the claimant. The last time that the claimant is seen on the CCTV is at 1.43pm when he is climbing into the water at the top end of the "U" of the pool in a\u00a0shallow area. 5. Three\u00a0minutes later, at 1.46, swimmers in the pool found the claimant lying unconscious at the bottom of the pool. That section\u00a0of the pool in which the claimant\u00a0was found\u00a0was 920mm in depth, so it\u00a0was an\u00a0area where the claimant, who\u00a0was about 1.2\u00a0metres tall, would not have been out of his depth. 6. The swimmers who found the claimant lying unconscious at the bottom of the pool hastily scooped him up and took him\u00a0to a\u00a0lifeguard. Resuscitation commenced, an\u00a0ambulance\u00a0was called, paramedics took the claimant\u00a0to hospital. The claimant survived but he suffered permanent brain damage as a\u00a0result of lack of oxygen. 7. It is clear that between 1.43, when the claimant\u00a0was last seen on the CCTV footage and 1.46, when he\u00a0was found lying at the bottom of the pool, there must have been some form of accident or mishap. Whether he slipped and fell or tried\u00a0to swim and failed is unknown. 8. The claimant has brought proceedings against the\u00a0Council alleging that the lifeguards who were on duty at the pool employed by the\u00a0council were negligent. The\u00a0Council has brought third party proceedings against the father. The father has put in no defence\u00a0to those third party proceedings but he is a\u00a0person of no means and no insurance, so no judgment has been entered against the father and it is not suggested that, absent some unexpected development, any judgment will ever be sought against the father. 9. The case advanced against the defendant\u00a0Council is that the lifeguards who it employed failed\u00a0to exercise proper vigilance. 10. There\u00a0was a\u00a0preliminary issue trial before Sir Colin Mackay, sitting as a\u00a0judge of the Queen's Bench Division. In\u00a0May\u00a02015, the judge handed down his reserve judgment on 11\u00a0June\u00a02015. The preliminary issues before the judge were the questions of liability and causation. 11. The judge found that two\u00a0lifeguards were within 7 or 8\u00a0metres of where the claimant\u00a0was found. One lifeguard was on a\u00a0seat at the top of what one might call the "U" shape of the pool, the other lifeguard\u00a0was on a\u00a0seat on the left-hand side of the pool. Both seats were raised some way above the floor in the conventional way. The written statements of the lifeguards, who were not called\u00a0to give evidence, were to the effect that they did not notice anything untoward. 12. The judge concluded that the lifeguards were negligent and that if they had been suitably vigilant they would have kept the claimant under observation, they would have seen the mishap as soon as it occurred, and would have rescued him before he suffered permanent brain damage. The medical evidence suggested that the claimant\u00a0was probably submerged for more than 2\u00a0minutes and 40 seconds. 13. In the course of his judgment, the judge concluded that the lifeguards, in scanning the activities in the pool, should have identified the claimant as a\u00a0child of interest, they should have continued\u00a0to watch him until they were satisfied that there\u00a0was no problem. They did not do this. The judge held that the lifeguards should have spotted that the claimant\u00a0was a\u00a0child at risk and they were negligent in failing\u00a0to do so. That forms a\u00a0key part of his finding on liability. 14. Ms\u00a0Susan Rodway\u00a0QC, who appears today on behalf of the\u00a0Council, submits that the judge set the standard too high and imposed too heavy a\u00a0burden on this public authority. Ms\u00a0Rodway makes the point that there were a\u00a0large number of children playing in the pool; there were large numbers of adults around them; there were at all times adults close\u00a0to the claimant, and it\u00a0was not obvious\u00a0to the lifeguards or\u00a0to any observer at the pool that none of the adults close to the claimant were responsible for supervising him. 15. The claimant's father knew, as\u00a0was the case, that the claimant could not swim but, says Ms\u00a0Rodway, this would not have been obvious to the lifeguards. Normally where a\u00a0child who cannot swim is taken\u00a0to a\u00a0swimming pool, the child would be wearing buoyancy aids of some form attached\u00a0to his arm or his body to ensure that the child would float. The claimant was wearing no such protection. There\u00a0was nothing, says Ms\u00a0Rodway, to alert the lifeguards\u00a0to the fact that this child\u00a0was at risk. 16. Therefore, submits Ms\u00a0Rodway, the judge fell into error in paragraphs\u00a033, 34 and\u00a035 of his judgment where he sets out the kernel of his reasoning. 17. Ms\u00a0Rodway relies upon a\u00a0number of concessions made by the expert witness for the claimant in the course of cross-examination. Those concessions, which I\u00a0will not read out, are set out in paragraph\u00a018 of her skeleton argument. 18. The claimant, the respondent\u00a0to the proposed appeal, has lodged a\u00a0respondent's statement pursuant\u00a0to the provisions of practice direction 52C. The respondent makes the point that this case turned on issues of fact, the judge\u00a0was a\u00a0judge of great experience, the judge heard oral evidence over several\u00a0days and there is no real prospect that the Court of Appeal will overturn what the claimant contends to be findings of fact. 19. I\u00a0see the force of those submissions. On the other hand, Ms\u00a0Rodway has persuaded me, contrary\u00a0to my inclination when I\u00a0first looked at the papers, that there is a\u00a0very respectable argument\u00a0to the effect that the judge did set the standard too high and Ms\u00a0Rodway's points, to the effect that the claimant\u00a0was not obviously a\u00a0child at risk, might succeed at the hearing of this appeal. 20. I\u00a0am certainly not saying that this appeal will succeed but it has a\u00a0sufficient prospect of success\u00a0to warrant the grant of permission. I\u00a0do not propose\u00a0to limit the grounds of appeal which may be pursued, it seems to me that having decided in principle that there should be permission\u00a0to appeal, this appeal should be permitted\u00a0to go forward on all of the proposed grounds. I\u00a0estimate the length of the hearing at one day. I\u00a0will say one day, two\u00a0judges, one of whom may be a\u00a0High Court judge. Costs in the appeal, I\u00a0think that is right. Thank you very much for your help.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

1. LORD JUSTICE JACKSON: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: the claimant at the material time was a young boy aged 6 and a half. On 17 February 2002, he went to a swimming pool in the company of his father and…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[7943],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[61603],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7705,7643,7621,87741,87742],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-886616","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-civil-division","kji_year-61603","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appeal","kji_keyword-claimant","kji_keyword-judge","kji_keyword-lifeguards","kji_keyword-rodway","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nRxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"1. LORD JUSTICE JACKSON: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: the claimant at the material time was a young boy aged 6 and a half. On 17 February 2002, he went to a swimming pool in the company of his father and...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"7 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-05-13T11:29:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr","og_description":"1. LORD JUSTICE JACKSON: This is a renewed application for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The facts giving rise to this application are as follows: the claimant at the material time was a young boy aged 6 and a half. On 17 February 2002, he went to a swimming pool in the company of his father and...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"7 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/","name":"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-05-13T11:29:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/rxdx-v-northampton-borough-council-anr-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Rxdx v Northampton Borough Council & Anr"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/886616","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=886616"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=886616"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=886616"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=886616"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=886616"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=886616"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=886616"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=886616"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}