Case Principle Wheat v Lacon &Co Define what is occupier. The test is occupational control over the premises, which is control associated with and arising from presence in and use of, or activity on the premises. Therefore an occupier is someone who has the immediate supervision and control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons. China Insurance Co Ltd v Woh Hup Contractor of a construction site was an occupier of the premises. Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (house left vacant, injured by vandals, 4 yr old child injured) Actual possession is not required in determing the adequacy of sufficient control. Held: Def has exercise statutory right to take possession and control of premises. Sri Inai (PP) v Yong Yit Swee ( no safety exit available, fire broke and injured children) In order to impose duty of care, the parties need not necessarily be in a pre- existing contractual relationship. Held: A landlord of premises stands in close proximity to the lawful visitors of his tenants. The duty is narrower than owed by the tenants, but still present. The duty is to ensure that the premises let out is safe and suitable for purposes for which they are let out. Wheeler v Copas Held: even though ladder constituted premises, the def is no longer occupier as the

Occupier Liablity Table

Download DOCX Report

Upload
chin-kuen-yei
View
3
Download
2

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

table

Citation preview

CasePrinciple

Wheat v Lacon &CoDefine what is occupier. The test is occupational control over the premises, which is control associated with and arising from presence in and use of, or activity on the premises. Therefore an occupier is someone who has the immediate supervision and control and the power of permitting or prohibiting the entry of other persons.

China Insurance Co Ltd v Woh HupContractor of a construction site was an occupier of the premises.

Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (house left vacant, injured by vandals, 4 yr old child injured)Actual possession is not required in determing the adequacy of sufficient control.

Held: Def has exercise statutory right to take possession and control of premises.

Sri Inai (PP) v Yong Yit Swee( no safety exit available, fire broke and injured children)In order to impose duty of care, the parties need not necessarily be in a pre-existing contractual relationship.

Held: A landlord of premises stands in close proximity to the lawful visitors of his tenants. The duty is narrower than owed by the tenants, but still present. The duty is to ensure that the premises let out is safe and suitable for purposes for which they are let out.

Wheeler v CopasHeld: even though ladder constituted premises, the def is no longer occupier as the ladder was already lent. But def was liable for negligence

Occupiers liability