“Acting for the benefit of society” Standard of Care, Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015, Hetherington v Fell & Ferryhill Cycling Club
The High Court has recently handed down judgment in Hetherington v Fell & Ferryhill Cycling Club (16 June 2025).
The facts of the case
The claim arose as a result of a collision between a cyclist, Benjamin Hetherington and a vehicle, driven by Raymond Fell. Mr Hetherington was a member of the Ferryhill Wheelers Cycling Club (The Club), an unincorporated association and was taking part in a time trial event organised by the Club.
Mr Hetherington sustained serious injuries when Mr Fell pulled out in front of him causing him to collide with the vehicle and be thrown into the road.
Mr Hetherington pursued a claim (via his father acting as litigation friend due to the severity of his injuries) against Mr Fell, who denied he had been negligent. Mr Fell, in turn brought a claim against the Club seeking a contribution and/or indemnity, “alleging negligent risk assessment and failure to put out adequate signs and a sufficient number of marshals.”
Mr Fell subsequently admitted liability in full for the accident shortly before the trial so when the case came before the High Court the only issue was his claim against the Club.
Mr Fell, as outlined above, asserted that the Club had breached its duty of care to Mr Hetherington. The Club pleaded that it was a voluntary organisation carrying out socially desirable activities, denied any duty of care or, if a duty was found, denied it was in breach of the duty. The Club also pleaded and relied upon the Social Action, Responsibility and Heroism Act 2015 (SARH) and the Compensation Act. It asserted that imposing a duty of care would discourage organisers and those taking part in events. The main aim of these Acts is to encourage those to carry out activities of social benefit without fear of incurring a civil liability.
The Compensation Act in effect requires courts to consider whether steps to meet a standard of care would prevent or discourage people from taking part in a “desirable activity”. This means, in practice, that those organising such activities will not be expected to exercise a standard of care comparable to those involved in activities that would not be deemed as desirable.
The SARH, introduced in 2015 as a clarification of the Compensation Act, requires the court to have regard for whether the allegedly negligent persons were acting for the benefit of society and demonstrated a predominantly responsible approach towards protecting the safety or interests of others.
The court rejected the evidence of Mr Fell and noted his insurers made “a wise decision to admit 100% liability” for the accident.
In relation to Mr Fell’s claim against the Club, the court found the Club did owe a duty of care to Mr Hetherington and the other riders. The Club owed a duty when carrying out risk assessments in relation to the possibility of a collision with negligent third-party drivers .
However, the court then considered the standard of care in the light of SARH and the Compensation Act. What is particularly notable was that the court had no previous case law to rely upon in respect of SARH making this the first case were the courts have sought to test the extent of the protection that the Act offers in cases such as this.
Taking SARH into consideration, the court found that the Club carried on its activities for the benefit of the cycling members of society and its members gave their time for free. Further, the cycling club was “predominately responsible” when it came to their duty of care having completed risk assessments, placed warning signs and used marshals among other measures. Therefore, the court found that the standard of care to be applied was that of a reasonable informed volunteer.
On that basis, the court found for the cycling club had discharged their duty of care to a high enough standard. The claim against the cycling club was dismissed.
Commentary
Based on the findings of the court the decision in favour of the Club is not surprising. However, it is of note that the judge was prepared to rely on SARH in support of the position that the Club had not breached any duty of care.
This is the first occasion to our knowledge that SARH has been applied to a civil claim in these circumstances. It is perhaps questionable whether that was its purpose and whether the activities of a members club were envisioned as a “desirable activity” by the drafters of the Act. Nevertheless, subject to any further appellate authority, the Hetherington case is good news for public liability insurers and a reminder of the Act’s existence and its potential to assist volunteer and charity organisations avoiding the burden of legal liability and thereby deterring volunteers from taking part.
Author notes
The issue of member to member liability between members of an unincorporated association was not considered in the case.
For further information on this topic please contact our insurance solicitors.
Insurance law
