Lord Justice Stuart-Smith, giving judgment in the Court of Appeal, would allow Tower Hamlets' appeal against liability after a pregnant woman tripped over market stall poles on a Whitechapel footpath in 2019.
Key facts
- Who: People injured on a public footpath by items left by market traders, and local authorities that license street trading.
- From: 17 June 2026 (judgment date)
- Source: Eva Cobija Sintes v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 752
In Eva Cobija Sintes v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 752, the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) gave judgment on 17 June 2026. Lord Justice Stuart-Smith gave the judgment. Lord Justice Bean and Lady Justice Yip were also on the panel. The appeal was heard on 28 and 29 April 2026.
Background
Ms Sintes was 35 and 36 weeks pregnant when she got off a bus in the middle of Whitechapel Market at about 5.00 pm on 19 December 2019. It was dark, cold and wet. She tripped over metal poles, about 2.5m to 3m long, lying on a trolley beside a litter bin and extending at least one metre across the footpath. She fractured her right ankle. Her baby was not affected and was born healthy in January 2020.
The poles were components of a market stall. They were unattended and not marked in any way to warn of them or identify their owner. The claim proceeded on the basis that they belonged to an unidentified trader. It was not alleged that they belonged to Tower Hamlets, and there was no evidence that it had placed them there. No one could say how long they had been there, and that was an issue at trial and on appeal.
Tower Hamlets is the licensing authority for the market traders under the London Local Authorities Act 1990. Transport for London, not Tower Hamlets, was the highway authority for the footpath. It was not alleged that Tower Hamlets was the occupier of the market area or the highway.
The question
Ms Sintes sued Tower Hamlets in negligence and nuisance. She said it was responsible for licensing, managing and controlling street trading, with powers of control and supervision, and should have known about the poles. She said it failed to remove them or warn of them, and allowed the market to be run in a way that created the obstruction. The amount of damages (quantum) had been agreed, so the trial concerned liability only.
On 30 July 2025 Deputy District Judge Gwynfor Evans, in the County Court at Central London, found for Ms Sintes. He gave Tower Hamlets permission to appeal, and the appeal was transferred to the Court of Appeal.
The decision
Lord Justice Stuart-Smith concluded that he would allow Tower Hamlets' appeal.
The licence conditions
The judgment sets out the conditions of Tower Hamlets' street trading licences:
- Traders must keep goods and equipment within their pitch limits.
- Traders must keep pitches free of trip hazards.
- Traders must clear the market by set times.
- The council may remove items left behind.
- The conditions can be enforced by prosecution, warnings, fixed penalty notices, seizure of goods or suspension of trading rights.
What this means for people injured in markets and on pavements
- Who owned or controlled the land, who left the item and how long it was there were all live issues in this case.
- The claim against the council rested on its role as licensing authority. It was not brought against the council as owner of the poles, occupier of the market area or highway authority.
- The full judgment sets out the court's reasoning and is worth reading in full by anyone affected by a similar claim.
Sources
- Eva Cobija Sintes v London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2026] EWCA Civ 752, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 17 June 2026