QB-2022-002451 - [2025] EWHC 2204 (KB)

The Defendant contracted with Amber Langis (AL) for the latter to provide specialist traffic management services in respect of, in particular, the road closure at Pitfield Street. The Defendant informed AL that the cycle route needed to be maintained. Mr James Ward of AL created a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to fulfil that request. Mr Ward’s evidence was that AL’s role in respect of traffic management was “to set up and hire the equipment” (See his first statement at para. 3 [441].) That statement also set out the following:

“4.

We were not present on site after installation, and, in relation to the cycle wands, we did not have maintenance responsibility once installed other than if requested by Morgan Sindall to replace lost or damaged cycle wands.”

The original plan drawn up by Mr Ward was not in evidence. Mr Ward’s evidence was that he no longer works for AL and therefore did not have access to emails he sent or received at the time. He also stated that he did not have access to the original TMP. However, his evidence was that he carried out a risk assessment and,

“would have considered risks such as vehicle incursions, available carriageway and cyclist segregation.”

At its highest, the evidence before the Court was that, at the design stage of the TMP, a risk assessment was undertaken by AL which “would have” considered vehicle incursions, available carriageway and cyclist segregation. Whatever assessment was undertaken, it was not in evidence. Mr Ward’s evidence was therefore based upon what he ‘would have’ considered. He did not appear to have a recall of what was actually considered, nor was there documentary evidence before the Court to establish what risk assessment actually took place. There was no evidence of what specific risks were considered, or of any detail of the risk assessment. There was no evidence of any risk assessment of the mechanism for segregation of the two-way traffic lane at that stage.

The Defendant’s Senior Project Manager was unaware of whether any risk assessment was required or undertaken in respect of the bollards used along Pitfield Street. His evidence, in common with that of some of the Defendant’s witnesses appeared to seek to place responsibility for the altered traffic management system either upon AL, or LBHC or TfL.

The documents before the Court clearly stated that responsibility for the scheme lay with the Defendant. The witness evidence from those working for TfL and LBHC did not suggest anything different. Rather, they simply explained a need for a collaborative approach in order to promote good practice, were clear that neither organisation had any responsibility or duty to approve a particular scheme.

Neither TfL nor LBHC endorsed or approved the use of any particular traffic bollard. TfL recommended something other than a moveable traffic bollard and suggested “pin in” cylinders.

The evidence of TfL and LBHC was that maintenance and monitoring of the scheme was key. Traffic marshals were not trained to do this. TfL and LBHC were not responsible for maintenance or monitoring of the scheme. Initial evidence from AL was that they did not have maintenance or monitoring responsibility for the site or, specifically, the cycle wands which were used (see further above).