Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 134

Facts

  • Michael Watson, a professional boxer, suffered severe, life-threatening brain injuries during a 1991 match against Chris Eubank.
  • Watson required extensive medical treatment and rehabilitation following the event.
  • The British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC) was responsible for regulating professional boxing in the UK, including setting rules regarding medical care at events.
  • Watson argued that BBBC failed to provide immediate and adequate medical attention and resuscitation equipment during the match, contributing to the severity of his injuries.
  • The primary issue concerned whether BBBC had a duty to ensure sufficient medical facilities and personnel were present at the event and whether a breach of such duty caused further harm to Watson.

Issues

  1. Whether the BBBC owed a duty of care to Michael Watson to provide adequate medical facilities and personnel at boxing events.
  2. Whether the BBBC breached that duty by failing to ensure the presence of necessary medical care and equipment.
  3. Whether the BBBC’s breach contributed materially to the severity of Watson’s injuries.

Decision

  • The court found that the BBBC did owe a duty of care to boxers, arising from its regulatory role and knowledge of the risks naturally present in boxing.
  • The BBBC breached this duty by failing to provide adequate medical facilities, personnel, and resuscitation equipment at the event.
  • The court determined that the lack of immediate medical treatment at the event contributed to the severity of Watson’s injuries.
  • The BBBC’s breach was a material cause of the harm Watson suffered.
  • The case established accountability of sporting bodies for the safety protocols affecting participants.

Legal Principles

  • The test for duty of care requires foreseeability of harm, proximity between parties, and that imposing a duty is fair, just, and reasonable, following Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 AC 605.
  • Governing bodies that assume responsibility for setting rules and standards for participant safety may owe a duty of care to those participants.
  • A breach occurs where there is failure to meet reasonable standards in providing for participant safety, and causation must be proven between the breach and the injury.
  • The duty covers ensuring adequate medical protocols, equipment, and trained personnel to address foreseeable risks associated with the activity.

Conclusion

Watson v British Boxing Board of Control [2001] QB 134 confirmed that sporting governing bodies owe participants a duty of care to provide adequate medical facilities at events, and that breach of this duty—if causing harm—can result in liability for injuries sustained during regulated sports activities.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal