Risk and lifestyle sports: the case of bouldering

Paul Gilchrist, Guy Osborn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


The recent case of Maylin v Dacorum Sports Trust [2017] EWHC 378 (QB) is the latest example of a claim being made for damages suffered whilst participating in bouldering, a form of low-level climbing. Whilst interesting in its own right in terms of how the courts apply legal principles to the area, it also sheds light on approaches to lifestyle sports more generally and the place of risk within play. This Intervention is essentially a case note of Maylin, but viewed, in part, through the lens of recent interdisciplinary work the authors have undertaken into parkour.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-4
Number of pages4
JournalEntertainment and Sports Law Journal
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 27 Dec 2017

Bibliographical note

Article is open access licensed under Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)


  • risk
  • liability
  • bouldering
  • lifestyle sports
  • climbing
  • negligence


Dive into the research topics of 'Risk and lifestyle sports: the case of bouldering'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this