O’Connell v Ministry of Defence

Subject Matter

PRACTICE — Claim — Fundamental dishonesty

[2025] EWHC 2301 (KB), KBD

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In O'Connell v Ministry of Defence, the High Court dismissed the Claimant's negligence and strict liability claims after a riding accident. The court determined there was no breach of duty by the Defendant, as the horse was deemed suitable and the Claimant's oversized riding boots did not contribute to the incident. Furthermore, the Claimant was found fundamentally dishonest regarding her disability and other claims, allowing the Defendant to enforce costs against her.

Issues

• Did the court determine whether the Defendant breached its common law duties by providing unsuitable riding equipment or inadequate training to the Claimant during her riding lesson?
• Was the Claimant able to establish that the Defendant was strictly liable under section 2(2) of the Animals Act 1971 due to the characteristics of the horse Jazz that caused her injury?
• Did the court find that the Claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in her claims regarding her disability, the care of horses, and the adaptations made to her vehicle?

Commentary

QMLR
Fundamental Dishonesty and the Role of Experts Case comment