CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd

Irish supreme court case

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionOct 6, 2025
Entity authorityQ65082638 ↗
Source-derived summary

Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd [2005] IESC 2 is a reported decision of the Irish Supreme Court that confirmed that under Section 4 of the Occupiers Liability Act 1995 an occupier of land is not required to take all reasonable care to safeguard the person or property of either trespassers or recreational users.

Background

A woman who had entered unused land adjoining the sea in order to witness a sunset sustained serious injuries after falling down a steep ridge leading to the beach. Seeking compensation for her injuries, the woman argued that the owners of the land had failed to discharge their duty of care under the Occupiers Liability Act 1995. The 1995 Act imposes obligations on occupiers in respect of the state of their premises in relation to three categories of entrant: visitor, recreational user and trespasser. Section 4 of the Act establishes the extent of the duty of care owed to recreational users and trespassers alike, namely, that the occupier must refrain from acting with ‘reckless disregard’. It was accepted in both the High Court and the Supreme Court that this was the defendants’ duty to the plaintiff. In the High Court, Butler J decided that the defendants were in breach of their statutory duty but found the plaintiff to be guilty of contributory negligence. The defendants appealed the High Court's finding of liability to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court faced two primary questions: first, the degree of culpability necessary to trigger liability under Section 4; and, second, how to characterise the culpability, if any, that attached to the defendant's failure to erect a warning notice at the relevant location.

Supreme Court Decision

Geoghegan J delivered the judgment of a unanimous Court.

Editorial summary

“Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd” enters the record as irish supreme court case. Crown Archives preserves that source wording while asking what Weir-Rodgers, Trust and Irish can confirm, complicate or overturn.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2005, 1995—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its strongest next move is a source search built around Weir-Rodgers, Trust and Irish.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

“Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd” is worth following because a concise public description often conceals a longer documentary argument. Here, Weir-Rodgers, Trust and Irish provides the most credible route into that argument.

Evidence profile

Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 6, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q65082638. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2005 and 1995.

Critical limits

Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd primary sources, Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd archive and Weir-Rodgers research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd”?
  2. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
  3. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.