QB-2018-004997 - [2025] EWHC 2301 (KB)

My finding that there was no first fall disposes of the allegation that the Claimant was negligently ordered to remount Jazz afterwards. The Claimant’s remaining allegations concern the size of her riding boots, whether she was properly instructed as to how to use the stirrups and the suitability of Jazz as a horse for riders of her experience. The Defendant has, implicitly at any rate, accepted a duty to provide the Claimant with suitable boots and proper instruction. Its case is that she was provided with those and, further, that there is no causative relevance to the allegations. With regard to Jazz, its case is that she was a suitable horse for the Claimant.

The Claimant brought her riding boots to court. Her evidence that they were the boots she had been wearing was not challenged. She put them on and demonstrated where her big toe was and where the ball of her foot was inside them. She accepted in cross-examination that she had been using the boots since June 2015, so for some months, but she stated that she had complained about them. The boots did not have a conventional size. The Claimant’s statement put them at size 8 as compared to her shoe size of 6. She gave evidence that she was instructed to put the ball of her foot in such a position that she had only the edge of her toes touching the stirrup. She agreed that she was told to put the front half of her boot in the stirrup. Her complaint was not so much about the instruction but her inability to put the relevant part of her foot in the stirrup because the boot was too big. The two allegations therefore go together. She agreed that, when demonstrating the fit of her boots at court, she was not wearing the socks she would have been and not wearing her riding britches, both of which would have made the fit tighter.

L/Bdr Oldfield could not recall whether she had accompanied the Claimant to get her boots but volunteered that it was quite common for boot sizes not to be ‘perfect’ and it was also common for recruits to borrow boots. She recalled the Claimant complaining about her boots. It was put to her that a consequence of that was that the Claimant could not use the stirrups properly. She replied that stirrup position was something that she allowed an element of compromise on in training. She taught the gold standard but tolerated something less. She accepted that the Claimant had struggled with her stirrups previously but did not accept that the Claimant’s boots or stirrup position were relevant to her fall.

I also heard evidence from Bombardier Kristian Dawson who worked in the stores in 2015. His evidence, supported by photographs, was that the stores stocked a wide range of boots of different sizes at the time. He did not recall whether he had dealt with the Claimant. He accepted that he might have issued boots two sizes too big but said that he would be concerned if he did that that the person to whom they were issued would soon be back to change them.

Whilst acknowledging that neither of them were experts in boot sizes, I did find the observations of the equestrian experts, Ms Taylor and Ms Ham helpful. Both had seen the boots being tried on. Ms Taylor, the Claimant’s expert, considered that they were too big, although she accepted that she was mistaken in her evidence as to their actual size. If the Claimant had been her pupil she would have wanted her to change her boots. Ms Ham, the Defendant’s expert, agreed that the boots were large but did not consider them so large as to be unacceptable.

I was referred in the context of the allegations concerning the boots both to the common law and to statutory duties, which no longer give rise to civil liability and did not add anything to the Claimant’s case.

I find that the Claimant’s boots were over-sized. I do not find on the evidence before me that she has shown to the requisite standard that they were so over-sized as to render them unsuitable for her use in riding lessons. That may have been so but the demonstration before me was not ‘like-for-like’ as the Claimant was not wearing what she would have been wearing for riding and although she had complained about them, she had in fact used them for riding for some months.

Notwithstanding my finding above in relation to breach of duty, I have gone on to consider whether the size of the Claimant’s boots or her stirrup position played a role in her fall from Jazz. I find that neither did. My reason is the absence of any mention of the boots in the Claimant’s 2016 accounts. In her February 2016 Armed Forces Compensation Scheme account, the Claimant not only does not mention her boots causing her difficulty but describes the lesson as ‘going well’. She gives a detailed description of her fall which, again, does not mention problems with her boots at all. The same is true of her December 2016 personal statement. I therefore separately reject her case on the causative role of her boots and her position with regard to the stirrups in the accident.

There was conflicting evidence before me about Jazz’s temperament. It was common ground that horse riding has inherent risks. All horses can buck in particular circumstances but a distinction can be drawn between what all horses do in particular circumstances and horses with a propensity to buck. The Claimant’s case is that Jazz was one such horse and the Defendant knew or ought to have known not only that she had that propensity but also that it rendered her unsuitable for novice riders.

Between 2013 and 2014 Jazz’s veterinary records contain reference to her needing to be sedated when shod, having a sore back (which can give rise to a propensity to buck) and to being prescribed medication, “regumate”, to improve her mood. A particular entry, dated 12 February 2014 reads,

“Has been better over last 2 weeks. Stable manners – not been in ride so much so cannot comment on bucking etc/throwing toys out of pram etc but is definite improvement in temperament. Continue on regumate. Review 2 weeks.”

(I have made some assumptions as to what abbreviations in the note mean.)

There are no similar entries in 2015.

There are no reports of bucking by Jazz before the Claimant’s fall but three after it, two from 2017 and one from 2019. In the 2019 incident she bucked twice.

Sgt Shaun Kershaw gave evidence. He holds NVQ qualifications in riding instruction and horse care and management. Albeit that they cite different parts of it, both parties relied on the written statement which Sgt Kershaw provided about Jazz in July 2018 to his superior officer,

In his oral evidence Sgt Kershaw referred to Jazz’s potential to have really bad days and noted that she was difficult to handle when being shod. He did not however accept she was an unsuitable horse for novice riders or that she had a tendency to buck. He was not aware of any incidents concerning Jazz prior to the Claimant’s fall. He was aware of the incidents in 2017 and 2019.

Gunner Collins stated that she had not ridden Jazz but had seen others ride her and she described Jazz as quite a safe horse.

L/Bdr Oldfield stated in her 8 September 2015 MOD Form 510 recording the Claimant’s accident that she considered Jazz the safest of the three horses on the recruits ride. She expanded on that in oral evidence and said that she had had some familiarity with her over the course of the month or so before the accident although Jazz would not have featured in every lesson she taught. She considered Jazz neither to be an amazing horse nor one that was really badly behaved.

The post-accident reports of Jazz bucking were put to L/Bdr Oldfield who did not consider them excessive for a horse used frequently in lessons. Sgt Kershaw’s evidence was to similar effect. He pointed out that Jazz had done 5 pass out recruits’ rides whilst he was in charge of her, meaning that she had been positively chosen by recruits as a horse on which they could rely for such an important occasion. The suggestion was put to Sgt Kershaw that it would be proper to infer from Jazz’s post 2015 bucking record that there were similar incidents beforehand. He did not accept that and no records have been located to show that that was so. The existence and disclosure of the reports of bucking by Jazz after the accident leads me to the conclusion that if there had been similar incidents before then there would probably have been similar reports.

I have read the statement from Ashleigh Gaston dated 13 June 2021. She states that Jazz had a reputation for having a powerful buck, however I cannot attach any weight to it given that she did not attend to give evidence and she has failed to give any explanation for that. Her evidence is not consistent with the evidence about Jazz’s reputation which I did hear. Further, Ms Gaston incorrectly stated in her statement that on an occasion before the Claimant’s accident Jazz had bucked and unseated Gunner Collins. When Gunner Collins gave evidence she told the court that she had never ridden Jazz.

I was also asked to consider two Facebook messages, one from 2016 and one undated. Both suggest some difficulties with Jazz but the individuals who posted the messages have not provided any evidence and their context cannot be reliably understood. For similar reasons to those I have outlined in relation to Ms Gaston’s statement, I attach no weight to them.

Even though there are no accident reports, the Claimant invites me to draw the inference from the veterinary entry for 12 February 2014 which I have quoted that Jazz was known to buck and could be difficult prior to the Claimant’s fall.

In the experts’ joint report (August 2021) Ms Taylor advised that Jazz’s bucking could be explicable as a ‘normal’ equine response to a sore back or to her being in season. Ms Ham’s opinion is similar. Ms Taylor however observed that further evidence of similar behaviour might however undermine that conclusion. She referred to the evidence in the Facebook messages to which I have not attached any weight. In the absence of such evidence, Ms Taylor considered Jazz suitable for novice recruits to ride. I agree with the observation Ms Taylor made when she gave oral evidence that the vet would probably not have mentioned bucking in February 2014 unless there had been a reason to do so but the evidence does not go further than that. She told me she would not expect a horse suitable for novices to buck unless there was good reason (my underlining). It was clear from her evidence that Ms Taylor required more than the veterinary entry before she advised that Jazz was an unsuitable horse for a novice. There is no further evidence that I can accept. Rather, I find that the evidence supports Sgt Kershaw’s 2018 assessment. Jazz was a suitable horse for a novice rider such as the Claimant.

The Claimant has drawn attention to the absence, at the time, of any formal record of the temperament of horses and to the practice in other equine regiments of having such a record, a ‘horse detail form’. Sgt Kershaw was asked about this and told the court that the Troop relied on the experience of its instructors and senior soldiers. The Claimant invites me to find that system inadequate. For the reasons I have outlined in the paragraphs immediately above this one, I find that had a formal assessment of Jazz been made before the Claimant’s fall, it would have contained information similar to Sgt Kershaw’s 2018 assessment and justified L/Bdr Oldfield’s assessment on the day (with the benefit of her experience) that Jazz was the safest horse on the ride. It is not therefore necessary for the purposes of this judgment for me to consider whether the system of informal risk assessment was adequate.

For the reasons I have set out above I find that the Claimant has failed to establish her allegations of negligence and I turn to her case under the Animals Act 1971.