The Highways Act 1980 (Amendment) Bill narrows the statutory defence available to highway authorities in claims for damages for non-repair under section 58. It replaces the existing phrase “such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required” with the far stronger phrase “all possible steps,” adds three specific factors the court must consider (including a six‑month full survey requirement), and forces highway authorities to provide all documentary and other evidence supporting their defence within 28 days of receiving a claim.
This is significant because it raises the substantive standard authorities must meet, creates a new evidential timetable that accelerates early disclosure, and embeds a compliance‑documentation expectation (recent surveys and repair history) into litigation. Local authorities, insurers, claimants’ lawyers, and magistrates/county courts will see changed incentives and operational demands if the bill becomes law.
At a Glance
What It Does
It substitutes the statutory defence’s standard of care with the phrase “all possible steps,” requires courts to have particular regard to whether the authority carried out a full condition survey within the prior six months (and to dates of last repair and surface dressing), and requires authorities to deliver all documentary and other evidence supporting the defence within 28 days of receipt of a claim.
Who It Affects
Principal actors are local highway authorities in England and Wales, their insurers, claimants alleging injury from alleged non‑repair, and civil courts handling these actions. Highway maintenance contractors and record‑keeping teams will face operational changes, while claims handlers will need to adjust timetables.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts the legal and administrative balance toward claimants by tightening defence standards and front‑loading disclosure. That makes early case assessment and administrative capacity (surveys, document retention, rapid disclosure) decisive in outcomes and could increase short‑term litigation and compliance costs for authorities.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
At its core the bill narrows the statutory defence that highway authorities use when someone sues them for damage caused by the condition of a public highway. The current statutory wording asks whether the authority took “such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required.” The bill replaces that with an obligation to have taken “all possible steps.” That is a qualitative change: courts will be asked to compare authority conduct against a potentially much higher, less deferential standard.
The bill also gives the court three concrete matters to inspect when a defendant authority relies on the special defence: whether the authority carried out a full condition survey of the relevant section within the previous six months, when that section was last repaired, and when it was last surface‑dressed. Those prescribed factors insert operational metrics — survey frequency and maintenance timestamps — into what has traditionally been a more contextual judicial assessment.
Practically, that will make recordkeeping and demonstrable maintenance histories central to mounting a defence.Crucially, the bill imposes a strict disclosure timeline: a highway authority must provide to the claimant, within 28 days of receiving any claim, “all the documentary and other evidence” it intends to rely on. That short deadline will force authorities and insurers to triage claims quickly, accelerate early investigations, and rely on pre‑existing maintenance files and contemporaneous surveys rather than ad hoc evidence gathered later in litigation.The Act’s territorial reach is limited to England and Wales and it comes into force on the day it is passed.
The combined effect is procedural and substantive: defendants face a higher standard of conduct, new evidentiary expectations tied to recent maintenance activity, and a compressed disclosure timetable. For practitioners, the bill reconfigures sensible pre‑litigation practice — authorities that do not already maintain six‑monthly full surveys and rapid document workflows will have weakened defences in court, and insurers will need to reassess reserving, investigation protocols, and defence strategies.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces the statutory test in section 58(1) of the Highways Act 1980 from “such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required” to “all possible steps.”, It directs courts to have particular regard to three items when assessing the defence: a full condition survey within the previous six months, the date of last repair, and the date of last surface dressing.
A new subsection requires highway authorities to provide the claimant with all documentary and other evidence the authority intends to rely on within 28 days of receipt of any claim.
The amendment applies only in England and Wales and the bill specifies that it comes into force on the day it is passed.
The statutory change targets claims for non‑repair under section 58 of the Highways Act 1980 — it does not create a standalone cause of action but narrows the defendant’s special defence.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Replaces the statutory standard of care with a stricter phrasing
This clause excises the familiar phrase “such care as in all the circumstances was reasonably required” and substitutes “all possible steps.” The practical effect is to raise the bar highway authorities must meet when pleading the special defence under section 58(1). The language is less deferential to resource or policy constraints and invites courts to evaluate whether authorities exhausted available measures rather than met a reasonableness threshold.
Prescribes specific factors the court must consider
The bill replaces the prior subsection (2) with a list of three factors: (a) whether the authority carried out a full survey of the relevant highway within the previous six months, (b) date of last repair, and (c) date of last surface dressing. By elevating these operational markers into statutory guidance for the court, the provision makes maintenance cycles and recorded interventions focal points in litigation, and will likely prompt authorities to adopt or formalise six‑monthly surveys to preserve defences.
Mandates early, comprehensive disclosure from highway authorities
New subsection (2A) requires a highway authority to send a claimant “all the documentary and other evidence” the authority will rely on within 28 days of receiving a claim. This is an early‑stage, defence‑side disclosure obligation distinct from standard civil disclosure rules; it compresses the timetable for evidence production and shifts investigative burden to authorities immediately after claim notification.
Extent, commencement and short title
This short provision confirms the amendments apply in England and Wales, takes effect on the day of Royal Assent, and provides a formal short title for the amending Act. Because it comes into force immediately, any claim that accrues after enactment will be subject to the tightened defence and the 28‑day disclosure clock.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Claimants (road users and litigants) — They gain a tougher defence to displace, stronger statutory focus on recent inspections and repairs, and an earlier flow of evidence from authorities that helps assess and advance claims rapidly.
- Personal injury solicitors — Faster disclosure and a heightened statutory standard increase early settlement leverage and case valuation clarity, enabling more efficient case triage and client advice.
- Insurers representing claimants (subrogation) — Quicker access to defence documents and clearer maintenance metrics can improve subrogation prospects and speed recovery decisions.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local highway authorities and councils — They face higher operational and legal costs to meet a stricter standard, implement or accelerate six‑monthly full surveys, maintain detailed records, and compile 28‑day disclosures.
- Authority insurers — Shorter disclosure deadlines and a stricter defence standard will likely increase claim frequency, reserve pressures, and early litigation expense as insurers invest more in prompt investigations.
- Taxpayers and local budgets — Increased maintenance scheduling, surveying, and litigation/administrative costs will pressure council budgets unless additional funding or reprioritisation occurs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between improving protection for road users by making it harder for authorities to hide poor maintenance behind a deferential defence and avoiding the imposition of an impractical, resource‑intensive duty on already stretched local authorities; tightening the defence reduces the risk of under‑maintenance being tolerated but risks imposing obligations that many authorities cannot meet without new funding or administrative capacity.
The bill trades a flexible, context‑sensitive statutory test for a compact of operational markers and a strict disclosure clock. That clarity helps claimants but creates implementation frictions: “all possible steps” is conceptually sweeping and will generate argument about feasibly available measures and resource constraints.
Authorities with limited budgets may be unable to show they took “all possible steps” even where they acted reasonably, inviting judicial second‑guessing of operational priorities.
The 28‑day disclosure requirement raises procedural questions. It is not integrated into CPR disclosure mechanics and does not specify sanctions for non‑compliance, scope limits (what counts as “other evidence”), or how to handle privileged material.
Courts will need to decide whether failure to disclose within 28 days defeats the special defence automatically or simply counts against the authority at trial. The statutory six‑month survey benchmark is also thinly defined: the bill does not define “full survey,” quality standards, or acceptable methodologies, leaving room for disputes about whether a survey meets the statutory threshold.
Finally, the bill does not address funding: requiring more frequent surveys and faster investigations without providing resources will shift costs to local taxpayers or cause authorities to litigate defensively rather than invest in preventive maintenance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.