OCCUPIERS LIABILITY
Pre-conditions for the acts to apply:
I. D must be an occupier
An occupier under OLA 57 is one who would be treated as such at common law s1(2).
In OLA 1984 – it refers back to OLA 57
o Neither act defines occupier.
Have Control:
o Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd occupier another word for someone who had a sufficient
degree of controlover premises to put him under a duty of care toward those who came
lawfully on to the premises.
o Wide definition, includes those in the background who also have necessary control:
A landlord has sufficient control over the communal staircase, roof gutters and
communal balconies Jordan v Achara
Where D, building owner, licenses a person to occupy the premises Wheat v E
Lacon % Co Ltd
Owner employs an independent contractor do to continuous work on the
premises, they may both be sufficiently in control to be occupiers Collier v
Anglian Water Authy
o Extent of control is a question of fact and degree
Bailey v Armes D had no permission to allow children onto neighbouring
supermarkets roof, it was not part of D’s land. Argued that since D had access to
the roof, they had acquired de facto control over the roof itself. Held: did not
have sufficient control over the roof or over who gained access to it to render
them the occupiers of the roof
Harris v Birkenhead Corp: D had immediate control over the property, became
its occupier as soon as the tenant had left. Knowing the property, D did nothing
to provide protection against trespasser such as C.
o Landlord Premises:
Drysdale v Hedge found that s4 of Defective Premises Act 1974 should be
applied.
(1)Where premises are let under a tenancy which puts on the landlord
an obligation to the tenant for the maintenance or repair of the
premises, the landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be
expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to
take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they
are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their
property caused by a relevant defect.
(2)The said duty is owed if the landlord knows (whether as the result of
being notified by the tenant or otherwise) or if he ought in all the
circumstances to have known of the relevant defect.
o A visitor can include a tenant Syke v Harry
o Must be a relevant defect in the premesises that is not in good
repair Drysdale v Hedges
Something is not a defect where it is potentially
dangerous or hazardous
II. The incident occurred at relevant premises to which the acts apply
Pre-conditions for the acts to apply:
I. D must be an occupier
An occupier under OLA 57 is one who would be treated as such at common law s1(2).
In OLA 1984 – it refers back to OLA 57
o Neither act defines occupier.
Have Control:
o Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd occupier another word for someone who had a sufficient
degree of controlover premises to put him under a duty of care toward those who came
lawfully on to the premises.
o Wide definition, includes those in the background who also have necessary control:
A landlord has sufficient control over the communal staircase, roof gutters and
communal balconies Jordan v Achara
Where D, building owner, licenses a person to occupy the premises Wheat v E
Lacon % Co Ltd
Owner employs an independent contractor do to continuous work on the
premises, they may both be sufficiently in control to be occupiers Collier v
Anglian Water Authy
o Extent of control is a question of fact and degree
Bailey v Armes D had no permission to allow children onto neighbouring
supermarkets roof, it was not part of D’s land. Argued that since D had access to
the roof, they had acquired de facto control over the roof itself. Held: did not
have sufficient control over the roof or over who gained access to it to render
them the occupiers of the roof
Harris v Birkenhead Corp: D had immediate control over the property, became
its occupier as soon as the tenant had left. Knowing the property, D did nothing
to provide protection against trespasser such as C.
o Landlord Premises:
Drysdale v Hedge found that s4 of Defective Premises Act 1974 should be
applied.
(1)Where premises are let under a tenancy which puts on the landlord
an obligation to the tenant for the maintenance or repair of the
premises, the landlord owes to all persons who might reasonably be
expected to be affected by defects in the state of the premises a duty to
take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances to see that they
are reasonably safe from personal injury or from damage to their
property caused by a relevant defect.
(2)The said duty is owed if the landlord knows (whether as the result of
being notified by the tenant or otherwise) or if he ought in all the
circumstances to have known of the relevant defect.
o A visitor can include a tenant Syke v Harry
o Must be a relevant defect in the premesises that is not in good
repair Drysdale v Hedges
Something is not a defect where it is potentially
dangerous or hazardous
II. The incident occurred at relevant premises to which the acts apply
