“Property owners cannot claim contributory negligence against injured burglars”
Newbery, an elderly allotment holder, slept in his shed to guard against burglars. When Revill attempted to break in, Newbery fired a shotgun through a hole in the door, injuring the burglar. Revill sued for damages for his injuries sustained during the burglary attempt.
Whether a defendant could plead contributory negligence against a claimant who was injured while committing a criminal act of burglary on the defendant's property
The Court of Appeal held that the defendant could not rely on contributory negligence as a defence, as the claimant's criminal conduct in committing burglary could not be used to reduce damages for injuries caused by the defendant's unreasonable force
This case clarified the limits of self-defence in property protection and established that criminal conduct by a claimant does not automatically provide a contributory negligence defence. It remains important for understanding the interaction between property rights and tortious liability.
You're reading the free summary of Revill v Newbery. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Revill v Newbery [1996] QB 567 (CA)
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.