[2004] EWCA (Civ) 756, 16 June 2004. Claimant (R) appealed against HC decision ([2003] EWHC 1029 (QB), [2003] All ER (D) 217 (May)) that the defendants (A) were not in breach of duty owed as occupiers to R. A and another were occupiers of a disused gravel pit used for recreational purposes. R dived into the shallow water of the gravel pit to retrieve his football, hitting his head on a fibreglass container on the bottom and suffered severe personal injuries. R accepted that he was a trespasser when he dived into the water, but argued that his injury was caused by a danger within the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 s1(3) that A had failed to protect against. R was unable to establish on the evidence submitted the threshold requirement for the existence of a duty of care, since he could not show that the defendants were aware of the danger on their land that caused his injury or had reasonable grounds for believing that it existed. "Tomlinson v Congleton BC and another" ([2003] UKHL 47, Abs67008) applied. HC decision upheld. View judgment at www.bailii.org.