Occupiers liability

Case
Wheat v Lacon &Co

Principle
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.

Sri Inai (PP) v Yong Yit Swee

( no safety exit available, fire broke
and injured children)

Held: Def has exercise statutory

right to take possession and control
of premises.
In order to impose duty of care, the
parties need not necessarily be in a
pre-existing contractual relationship.

Wheeler v Copas

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