My Law Tutor

Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary

April 03, 2024
Micheal James

Jurisdiction / Tag(s): UK Law

Introduction to Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary

A seemingly innocent act of childhood exploration on the roof of a youth club turned into a tragic accident, sparking a legal battle with lasting implications for child safety and occupier’s liability. Young v Kent County Council (2005) centered around a young boy’s fall through a neglected skylight, raising crucial questions about the responsibility of those who manage buildings where children are present.


The events leading to the legal battle unfolded at a youth club run by the Kent County Council. Young, a boy of 12 ½, attended the club with friends, unaware of the hidden danger lurking above. The youth club was situated in a school building owned and managed by the council. Tragically, a crucial element of the building – the skylight on the roof – presented a significant safety hazard. Previous inspections had identified the skylight’s brittle nature, raising concerns about potential accidents. A health and safety report even documented the risks and recommended corrective measures. However, despite these warnings, the Kent County Council had not taken any action to address the dangers posed by the skylight. This lack of action became the central theme when Mr. Young’s fateful fall unfolded.


The accident left Mr. Young with serious head injuries, prompting his family to seek legal recourse. The case hinged on two fundamental legal principles:

  • Occupier’s Liability: Did the Kent County Council, as the occupier of the premises where the youth club was held, owe a legal duty to ensure the safety of the children attending the club, particularly concerning the dangerous skylight on the roof?
  • Causation: Even if a duty of care was established, was the absence of safety measures around the skylight the direct cause of Mr. Young’s fall and subsequent injuries?


In a landmark decision, the court sided with Mr. Young, holding the Kent County Council liable for his injuries. This decision sent a clear message regarding the responsibility of occupiers to prioritize child safety.

Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning of the Court)

The court’s reasoning focused on establishing a clear connection between the council’s negligence and the tragic accident:

  • Occupier’s Liability Act 1984: The court applied the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984, a legal framework outlining the duty of care owed by occupiers to visitors on their premises. Since the youth club attendees qualified as lawful visitors, the council had a legal obligation to ensure their safety.
  • Breach of Duty: The court found the Kent County Council had demonstrably breached their duty of care in several ways. Firstly, they had failed to conduct a proper risk assessment of the roof area, neglecting to identify potential hazards like the brittle skylight. Secondly, they had ignored the existing safety report and recommendations to address the dangers. Finally, the minimal supervision offered to the children attending the club further highlighted the council’s negligence.
  • Causation: The court acknowledged that Mr. Young’s age and the natural curiosity of children could have contributed to the fall. However, the court ultimately employed the “but for” test to establish causation. In simpler terms, the court reasoned that if the council had taken appropriate safety measures, such as fencing off the area or installing railings, the fall might not have occurred.
  • Contributory Negligence: While Mr. Young’s actions played a role in the accident, the court considered his age a significant factor. His contribution to the accident was deemed minimal compared to the council’s significant breach of duty.


Young v Kent County Council (2005) holds significant weight in the realm of occupier’s liability and child safety. The case established the following legal principles:

  • Enhanced Duty for Children: The case emphasizes the heightened duty of care owed by occupiers towards children on their premises. Occupiers are expected to take greater precautions to safeguard children from foreseeable dangers. This heightened duty reflects the understanding that children are more vulnerable and may not always possess the same awareness of risks as adults.
  • Risk Assessments and Safety Measures: The case underscores the importance of conducting proper risk assessments and implementing appropriate safety measures to address identified hazards. The Kent County Council’s disregard for the known dangers posed by the skylight ultimately led to tragic consequences.
  • “But For” Test and Causation: The case exemplifies the application of the “but for” test, a crucial tool in establishing causation in negligence claims. The court considered whether the harm would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s breach of duty.


Young v Kent County Council (2005) stands as a landmark case, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing child safety and the legal responsibility of occupiers to ensure a safe environment for visitors, particularly children. The case underscores the need for thorough risk assessments, appropriate safety measures, and heightened vigilance when children are present on the premises. This decision continues to influence legal discussions and court decisions concerning occupier’s liability and the duty of care owed to children. It serves as a reminder that neglecting potential hazards, especially when children are involved, can have serious legal and human consequences.

Why Choose Us:

Students trust our law coursework services for their reliability, professionalism, and commitment to excellence. Whether students need assistance with research, writing, or editing, our team of seasoned professionals delivers high-quality coursework that meets academic standards and earns top grades, enhancing their learning experience and academic performance.

Cite This Work

Select a referencing style to export a reference for this article:

All Answers ltd, 'Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary' (, ) <> accessed 24 July 2024
My, Law, Tutor. ( ). Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary. Retrieved from
"Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary." . All Answers Ltd. 07 2024 <>.
"Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary." MyLawTutor., . Web. 24 July 2024. <>.
MyLawTutor. . Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary. [online]. Available from: [Accessed 24 July 2024].
MyLawTutor. Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary [Internet]. . [Accessed 24 July 2024]; Available from:
<ref>{{cite web|last=Tutor |first=MyLaw |url= |title=Young v Kent County Council – Case Summary | |date= |accessdate=24 July 2024 |location=UK, USA}}</ref>

Related Cases

Central London Property Trust v High Trees House – 1947

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Central London Property Trust v High Trees House: In 1947, the English High Court grappled with a pivotal question in Central London Property Trust v High Trees House, shaping the landscape of contract law. The dispute, between a landlord (CLPT) and a tenant (HTH), hinged on the enforceability of an informal rent reduction […]

Caparo v Dickman Case Summary

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Caparo v Dickman In the Caparo v Dickman case, Caparo Industries plc brought a lawsuit against their auditors, Dickman, alleging negligence in financial reports. The case became significant in defining the duty of care in negligence and had a profound impact on the field of tort law. This case played a crucial role […]

Walsh v Lonsdale (1882)

UK Law . Last modified: December 21, 2023

Introduction to Walsh v Lonsdale (1882) In 1882, the legal dispute of Walsh v Lonsdale unfolded, involving Mr. Walsh and Mr. Lonsdale. This case revolved around an agreement concerning a property lease that led to disagreements between the two parties, resulting in legal actions. During the late 19th century, property laws and contractual agreements were […]

Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council

UK Law . Last modified: December 26, 2023

Introduction to Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council: Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council addresses vital legal aspects concerning duty of care and negligence. Its importance lies in illustrating real-life situations where legal principles are applied to resolve disputes. This case serves as a reference point in legal education, offering insights into the practical application […]

Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council – 1940

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

Introduction to Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council – 1940 Chapelton v Barry Urban District Council (1940) stands as a pivotal case in English contract law, offering a nuanced perspective on the interplay between offer and acceptance, exclusion clauses, and negligence in everyday transactions. The seemingly simple matter of renting a deck chair unfolded into […]

Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton – 1913

UK Law . Last modified: July 20, 2024

 Introduction to Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton – 1913 Heilbut, Symons & Co v Buckleton, a landmark case from 1913, holds significant importance in the realm of contract law. This case revolves around a dispute between Heilbut, Symons & Co, the plaintiff, and Buckleton, the defendant. It raises fundamental questions regarding the interpretation […]

go to top