The first reported case on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015

Introduction

On 16 June 2025 the High Court handed down judgment in Benjamin Hetherington (by his father and litigation friend Gary Hetherington) v Raymond Fell & Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling [2025] EWHC 1487 (KB). The case, which concerned the scope of duty for cycle race organisers, raised interesting questions about the obligations owed by amateur organisers of sporting events to competitors.

 

The facts

The Claimant, Mr Heatherington, was a cyclist and member of his local cycling club ran by volunteers, Ferryhill Wheelers (the second Defendant).

On 23 May 2019, he was participating in a 10-mile time trial organised by Ferryhill Wheelers, in which most of the route was on a dual carriageway. The first Defendant, Mr Fell, was the driver of a Mercedes on the dual carriageway returning home from a 12-hour work shift. Mr Fell, failing to stop at white painted “give way” lines, pulled out in front of Mr Hetherington, colliding with him at 20mph. Mr Hetherington sustained very serious injuries in the collision, including a severe traumatic brain injury.

Mr Heatherington (via his father as litigation friend) sued Mr Fell, alleging negligence. Mr Fell initially denied the claim, bringing Part 20 proceedings against Ferryhill for negligent risk assessment and failure to put out adequate signs and/or a sufficient number of marshals. Ferryhill Wheelers denied the allegations.

Subsequently, Mr Fell’s insurer admitted 100% liability for the collision, but continued the claim for contribution. This claim was therefore all that remained for the High Court to resolve.

 

The issues

Mr Fell, as outlined above, averred that Ferryhill Wheelers had breached its duty of care to Mr Hetherington. Ferryhill Wheelers contested the claim, contending that no such duty existed; in the alternative, they were not in breach of any duty as they had taken adequate precautions. Relying on the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 (SARHA 2015), Ferryhill Wheelers argued that they were volunteers organising activities for the benefit of society, and imposing a duty of care would discourage future organisers and competitors.

Mr Justice Richie identified several issues for determination [5]:

• Whether the Second Defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant;
• The scope and standard of care of that duty;
• Whether the Second Defendant breached that duty;
• Whether any breach caused the accident; and
• If so, how liability should be apportioned between the two Defendants.

 

The findings

The key question was whether a cycling club owed a duty of care to its riders in relation to the risk assessment process, in particular a duty to take into account the potential negligent behaviour of third-party drivers when performing risk assessments on public roads.

Richie J answered this question in the positive. Applying the Caparo test:

• Riders entrust the choice of course, the time of the trial, the risk assessments, and the warning measures to their cycling club. That creates a relationship of close proximity;
• There is a foreseeable risk of harm to riders on public roads from third party drivers;
• Imposing such a duty is fair, just and reasonable in the circumstances [56].

In regard to their risk assessment, Ferryhill Wheelers had a duty to take reasonable care to (1) identify the relevant hazards; (2) assess the level of risk; (3) identify reasonable mitigating measures; (4) inform members of the Club of the risk assessment so that control measures could be implemented; and (5) review the risk assessments at reasonable periods [65].

In considering the scope of that duty, the standard of care to be applied was that of a reasonably competent and informed volunteer [66].

Particularly relevant to the scope and standard of care were the following factors:

• The lack of control which a cycling club could exert over a public road [57];
• The fact that Ferryhill Wheelers was not a business nor an employer. It was a volunteer-run organisation in which “all those involved gave their time for free, for the love of the sport and to help each other enjoy the sport” [58];
• There is a degree of risk in the activity; cycling on public roads is an inherently dangerous endeavour. Balanced against this, however, is the fact that riding bicycles is healthy, and widely enjoyed and encouraged [59];
• Practically, if the standard of care imposed on cycling clubs in relation to time trial risk assessments was too high, it would be a deterrent for volunteers. It was highly relevant that Ferryhill Wheelers was freely carrying out an activity for the benefit of the cycling members of society [60];
• SARHA 2015 requires a judge to take into account various considerations, including any societal benefit of the action, which must be taken into account when setting the standard of care. The Compensation Act 2006 similarly provides that a court may consider the deterrent effect of imposing liability on a socially beneficial activity [60-62].

In light of the above analysis, it was held that Ferryhill Wheelers discharged their duty of care. The risk assessments carried out in 2007 and 2018 were sufficient in the circumstances, and reasonable steps were taken to alert drivers to the time trial through both signage and marshals.

The Part 20 claim was therefore dismissed. The gravamen of the decision was that “[t]his was a voluntary organisation carrying out tasks for free for the benefit of members of society and the standard of care placed upon them in law is not so high that it would discourage such beneficial voluntary activities” [80].

 

Comment

It was not surprising that a duty of care was imposed on an organiser of a sporting event vis-a-vis competitors in these circumstances. However the formulation of the scope of duty demonstrates a notable degree of latitude to amateur sports clubs. The dicta consistently emphasised the slowness that the law should have in imposing liability in these circumstances, taking into account the enormous social value of volunteer sporting events.  It is notable that Richie J assessed the standard of care as being that of a reasonably competent and informed volunteer, not a reasonably competent sporting events organiser. This serves to potentially allow for the imposition of a lower standard of care.

Additionally, this is thought to be the first occasion in which the SARHA 2015 has been successfully relied upon in a civil claim. Indeed, there was no precedent for Richie J to consider in interpreting the Act. Whether it will set a new judicial trend remains to be seen.

Thus the judgment overall will have been a very welcome one to amateur sports clubs organising sporting events.

 

Analysis and review produced by Olivia Kirk, Pupil of Farrar’s Building. 

---

• Share article:

---