Court rejects assumption-based slip claim

The decision in Seppings v Crampsie & Son Ltd t/a The New Inn Roughton appears to be a useful addition to the growing line of “slip” authorities emphasising that a claimant must still prove the existence of a relevant slipping hazard before any burden shifts to the defendant to justify its systems.

Short overview

In this employer’s liability slipping claim, the claimant, who was employed by the defendant as a bar maid, alleged that she slipped at the defendant’s premises. She sought to rely heavily on the defendant’s lack of documentary health and safety systems including no written risk assessments, no formal cleaning regime, no formal inspection or cleaning logs and no documented staff training records as breaches of her employer’s duty of care as her employer and as occupiers of the premises. The defendant argued that there had been no hazard, on the basis that the publican had inspected the scene immediately after the accident took place, and no hazard was identified, and that a ‘clean as you go’ policy had been communicated to the claimant. 

It was established that the claimant had worked at the defendant’s premises for 6 ½ years prior to the accident and knew where the mop, bucket, blue roll, hazard tape and ‘wet floor’ sign were kept. Master Armstrong noted that the defendant’s logbook indicated that she had told her employer that the trainers she was wearing were not non-slip, and she had returned the trainers she was wearing to the store after the accident, having purchased them seven days prior to the accident. The claimant was inconsistent in her account of how she fell and there was no evidence as to the type of substance that had caused the fall, nor how it came to be on the floor. The defendant’s accident log cited the claimant reporting the trainers she was wearing were not non-slip with the claimant’s witness statement declaring “there must have been something on the floor to make me slip”.

Despite the defendant breaching their duty of care to the claimant, by virtue of the lack of documented systems, there was no evidence of anything on the floor which caused the claimant to fall. As such,  Master Armstrong concluded that those breaches “were not causative of the claimant’s accident” adding that “Even if there had been a documented cleaning and inspection regime, a documented training programme, more staff on duty, less customers on site, documented risk assessments, or staff handbook, the accident would not have been prevented given the absence of a liquid or hazard on the floor” and the claim was dismissed.

A poor or undocumented system does not automatically prove negligence.

Key takeaways for insurers and defendants

Seppings confirms that evidential gaps do not reverse the burden of proof. The claimant still must prove that a slipping hazard existed in the first place and only then does the adequacy of the defendant’s system become the central issue.

That is particularly important in transient spill cases where nobody witnessed a contaminant, no photographs exist, CCTV is absent and the claimant’s description is vague.

Liability investigations should focus heavily on proof of hazard

Defendants should continue to scrutinise what exactly the claimant alleges they slipped on and whether there was any evidence of a spillage. In many “slip” claims, the weakest part of the claimant’s case is not the cleaning regime but proof that a hazard existed at all.

Even where systems are informal, credible lay evidence from staff, managers, cleaners, or independent witnesses can be sufficient to rebut allegations of unsafe premises conditions. Cases of this type are often won or lost on factual reliability.

Documentary systems still matter

Although the defendant succeeded, insurers should not read the case as diminishing the value of proper systems. A documented inspection and cleaning regime still improves evidential defensibility, assists witness recollection, strengthens credibility and may defeat claims at an earlier stage.

The Seppings case is better understood as authority that poor documentation is not fatal where the claimant cannot prove the essential factual premise of the claim.

Courts remain reluctant to impose strict liability

The mere fact of a fall does not establish negligence. On this occasion, the court has resisted hindsight reasoning of, “someone fell, therefore the floor must have been unsafe”. That remains an important defence principle in employer liability and public liability claims.

Practical insurer lessons

This case supports early challenges to proof of hazard and scrutiny of inconsistencies, robust causation defences, resisting attempts to shift the burden onto the defendant merely because records are incomplete and maintaining focus on the claimant’s evidential burden throughout. It may also be a useful authority when rebutting claimant submissions that missing inspection records justify adverse inferences automatically.

The case was reported as: Seppings v Crampsie & Son Ltd t/a The New Inn Roughton [2026] EWHC 859 (KB).