Share
On 13 March 2026, the High Court delivered judgment in Yates v Dublin Bouldering Gym Limited & Anor, dismissing the plaintiff’s personal injury claim arising from a fall from a climbing wall at an indoor bouldering facility. Kennedys represented the successful defendants.
The judgment provides important guidance on the scope of the duty of care owed by operators of recreational activities to participants who engage in activities involving inherent risks.
Background
The plaintiff alleged on 2 February 2018, while attending the indoor bouldering facility operated by Dublin Bouldering Gym Limited, (the first defendant), she fell from a climbing wall and sustained a fracture to her left ankle and a sprain to her right ankle.
The plaintiff was a student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI), (the second defendant) and a member of its climbing society. She had previously attended the facility as part of the climbing society, where she completed the registration process and climbed without incident.
Case against the first defendant
The plaintiff accepted that indoor bouldering is an inherently risky activity. However, she submitted that she was a novice climber and should have received instruction, and supervision by the first defendant, particularly in proper landing technique.
Case against the second defendant
The plaintiff submitted that the second defendant was obliged to carry out a risk assessment of the activity and to ensure that the premises where the student event was held had appropriate safety systems, induction, and training in place.
Breach of duty
Although, the plaintiff pleaded a claim under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1995, no case was pursued at trial that the injury arose from any danger due to the state of the premises. It was also never pleaded or pursued at trial that the first defendant was in breach of any applicable statutory or regulatory regime governing the operation of the facility.
The plaintiff’s climbing expert relied on guidance issued by Mountain Training UK which advocated for instructor led training and supervision for novice climbers. However, the plaintiff’s expert accepted under cross examination that the guidance was published after the accident. Therefore, the guidance could not retrospectively define the applicable standard of care.
Negligence
A central issue was the scope of the duty of care owed to participants who engage in an activity involving obvious and inherent risks, and whether this duty extends to providing instruction and supervision.
In the absence of Irish authority, the court relied on the English decisions of Poppleton v Trustees of the Portsmouth Youth Activities [2008] and Maylin v Dacorum Sports Trust [2017]. These authorities establish that where an adult of full capacity voluntarily engages in an activity with inherent risks, there is generally no duty on the operator to train or supervise. The duty of care is instead directed at risks arising from the condition of the premises or from hazards created by the operator.
Judge Coffey confirmed that these authorities were consistent with Irish law and common law principles governing voluntary risk. Importantly, it was noted that the English authorities do not displace the criteria for establishing whether a duty of care arises under Irish law as set out by the Supreme Court in Glencar Explorations Plc v Mayo County Council (No.2) [2002]. Rather, the authorities illustrate the application of the same principles in a closely analogous, factual context.
Safety documentation and induction
The court found that the first defendant’s safety statements, risk assessments, rules, and registration form did not create any contractual obligation to provide induction, instruction in safe landing, or supervision to the plaintiff. Rather, the documents regulated the conditions of access to the facility and recorded the participant’s acknowledgment of the inherent risks.
The court also found it more likely than not that an induction was given by way of a short safety briefing provided to the arriving group on their first visit. It was accepted that the plaintiff whether through temporary absence did not personally receive, absorb or recall the safety information that was communicated.
Causation
Although, Judge Coffey found no breach of duty was established, the issue of causation was discussed in detail in his judgment.
The plaintiff’s climbing expert was of the view that the accident would not have occurred had a qualified instructor supervised the plaintiff. The expert gave evidence that the plaintiff’s injuries were attributable to improper landing technique. However, he accepted under cross examination that he did not observe the fall, did not know precisely how the plaintiff landed, and accepted falls are unpredictable.
The court concluded that the plaintiff fell due to a momentary loss of grip, an inherent risk of bouldering, and that her injuries were not caused by any failure on the part of the defendants.
Comment
The decision represents a significant clarification of the law in Ireland concerning recreational activities involving inherent risk.
For plaintiffs, the judgment highlights the challenges in establishing lability where injuries arise from inherent risks, particularly where no danger exists due to the state of the premises, or no specific negligent act can be identified.
For defendants, the decision underscores the importance of clear safety documentation which will carry significant weight, provided no additional duties are assumed.
Notably, the judgment aligns Irish law with established English authority and reinforces a pragmatic approach to occupiers’ liability in a recreational context.
Ireland