Occupiers' Liability Act 1984: Significance and Case Law Analysis

This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the Occupiers' Liability Act 1984, a key statute in English property law. It begins by explaining the Act's intended purpose: to define the duties of occupiers of land towards visitors and, importantly, trespassers, clarifying responsibilities and establishing legal standards where previously there was ambiguity. The report emphasizes the Act's significance, particularly Section 1, which outlines the circumstances under which an occupier owes a duty of care. Furthermore, the report delves into the relevance of the Act, highlighting its importance in modern property law and its impact on liability. The analysis is enriched by a review of three landmark cases: Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited, Ratcliff v McConnell and Harper Adams College, and Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council. These cases are examined to demonstrate how they have clarified the provisions of the Act. The report also elucidates the concept of legal precedent and how these cases have shaped the interpretation and application of the Act. The analysis connects the cases to relevant sections of the Act, providing a practical understanding of how the law operates in real-world scenarios.

qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmeqw
ertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty
uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiop
asdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdf
ghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjk
lzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
mqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwer
tyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcv
bnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnm
qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyu
Running Head: BUSINESS AND CORPORATION LAW 0
Occupiers' Liability
6/24/2018
Student’s Name

Property Law
1
Contents
Introduction......................................................................................................................................2
Significance of Act..........................................................................................................................3
Cases................................................................................................................................................4
Case 1- Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited (2003) (3 All ER 1101; 2 WLR 1138)......4
Case 2- Ratcliff v McConnell and Harper Adams College [1997] EWCA Civ 2679…………. 5
Case 3- Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705……………………….......6
Legal Precedents..............................................................................................................................8
Case law Providing Legal Precedents..............................................................................................9
Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................10
References......................................................................................................................................11

Property Law
2
Introduction
The chosen act for this report is Occupier’s Liability Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred as Act). The
selected act is an act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is a law that covers the
provisions related to occupier’s liability (legislation.gov.uk, 2018). In the history of law of
United Kingdom, this is the first act which lightens up the duties of the occupier of a land in
respect of the visitor other the invited one. The act received royal assent as on 13th March 1984
and became effective from 13th May 1984.
This is to mention that this act has it is huge significance. Before the development of the stated
act, rules were not properly defined. It was held in the case of British Railways Board v
Herrington 1972 AC 877 that an occupier of a land owns a duty towards trespassers. But the
exact application of the same was not clear. Similarly, according to the decision of the case
Addie v Dumbreck [1929] AC 358, trespasser was liable for any wrong that happened to him/her.
This was unfair as in some of the cases; the trespasser is a child or has no knowledge of the
relevant law. So, this was the reason for which Occupier’s Liability Act, 1984 was developed
(clarksonhirst, 2015).
The lead purpose behind making a separate law in this sector was to provide a well-defined set of
rules and regulation in order to protect the interest of trespasser and visitors of a land. Who will
be the responsible person if a visitor or trespasser would get injured or some lose the same would
accrue (defra, 2018). There was no defined law and cases related to this topic were used to be
resolved on the basis of natural justice or on the basis of decisions given by other courts in a
similar matter. This situation started creating problem and evolution of a particular law became
necessary. Hence, it may state that the whole purpose behind the creation of this law was to
provide protection to visitors and trespassers and to characterize duties of the occupier.

Property Law
3
Significance of Act
This Act imposes liability on occupier rather than the landowner and for this reason the area of
this act is wider in comparison of prior statue. This act is far significant also for the reason that
the same charges liability on occupier in respect of visitors other than occupier’s visitors
(Hopkins, 2012). The prior act i.e. Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957 was there to safeguard the
interest of visitor to whom occupier has invited. Thus, those visitors to whom occupier has not
invited could not get any remedy under previous act. Occupier’s Liability Act, 1984 has 4
sections in total. Every section has it is own relevancy.
Section 1 of the said act states the duties which an occupier owns in respect to the visitors (other
than his visitors), circumstances where this duty comes into light and other related provisions.
Similarly, Section 2 defines the situation where the liability of an occupier will not attract.
Further in addition to this, Section 3 provides the applicability of this act on the crown, and the
last section i.e. section 4 stipulated the area, short titles, and entitlement (adgm.complinet, 2018).
Although every section of this act defines the important aspects yet, section 1 plays a great role
in comparison to rest of the sections.
Section 1 is the lead section which includes the duty of an occupier, and section 1(3) defines the
circumstances where an occupier is liable to visitors. Further, section 1(6), provides that an
occupier does not own any duty to that person who winningly accepted the risk. Section 1(5)
states that occupier can be discharged by his liabilities if he takes appropriate actions and give
warning to a trespasser. Hence, in this context, it may state that although this whole act is
important, section 1 is more relevant somewhere.

Property Law
4
Cases
Case 1- Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited (2003) (3 All ER 1101; 2 WLR 1138)
In this case, claimant named Mr. Donoghue was a well-trained swimmer and a fit scuba
professional. Once he has spent a Boxing Day evening and decided to go for a midnight swim
with his friends in the sea. As he was in hurry and because of his excitement, he jumped from a
slipway in folkestone harbor possessed by the defendant and struck his head on a submerged
block that broke his neck. It was evidenced that the people were used to come there slipway in
the summer month and to use. Although defended had employed security guard there, to stop
people from doing so yet, any warning sign was not there. The obstruction due to which claimant
got injured was a perpetual element of grid-pile and the same was submerged into the water. In
high tide, it was safe but in the circumstances where tide went out, the same was a danger. As
claimant has suffered from personal injury, he brought an action against defendant under
Occupier’s Liability Act, 1984.
Section 1(3) of Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 defines the liability of occupier in respect of
trespasser and visitors. As earlier stated that the claimant was a well-trained swimmer, thus it
was his duty to check the level of water and other factors related to obstruction. The trial judge
while considering the case given the decision in favor of claimant but reduced the damages by
seventy-five percent (75%) as claimant did contributory negligence. But further, defendant has
made an appeal stating that, although under section 1(3) of the act, liability of an occupier has
defined, yet while giving the decision, circumstances of a specific case must be studied.
Defendant further argued that the same had not any idea that one could have a plan about
midnight swimming in the sea that too in the winter season. They have a proper safety measure
but could not access the probability of an accident during winters and in the middle of a night.

Property Law
5
Appellant court has allowed the appeal. It was held in this case that while considering occupier’s
liability under section 1(3) of the act, it must take into the care that whether the defendant could
have the knowledge of the involved risk or not. In the cited case, the defendant could not get an
idea that someone can go to swim in the mid of a night and that also in the winter season. In
conjunction with, defendant also had no reason to believe that anyone would swim from the
slipway. Section 1(3) sets out the conditions where occupier owes a duty in respect of other
people (except his visitors). According to clause b of this section, occupier will only be
responsible where he has reasonable ground to believe that visitor can come across vicinity the
danger. As in the studied case, the defendant could not know that claimant will go for swim.
Hence, according to the provisions of this section, defendant has no duty owed to the claimant.
Case 2- Ratcliff v McConnell and Harper Adams College [1997] EWCA Civ 2679
In the cited case the claimant, a student at Harper Adams College after had drinks in the college
campus with his friends went for a swim. The swimming Pool in which, claimant was expected
to swim was also situated in the college campus and was the property of college. College
authority had a notice at the very entrance mentioning that the swimming pool will remain closed
between the hours 10:00 Pm- 06:30 am and use of the same is prohibited during the mentioned
time. Two another notices were also there, one on the end of shallow stating “Shallow End” and
another one is on deep end mentioning “Deep end-Shallow dive”. Claimant and his friends did
not see the mentioned sign and notice boards. All of them were expected to swim there but
claimant wanted to check the temperature of the water thus he has put his toe into the water.
The point where the claimant dived was shallower and because of this, his neck got injured and
brake and he also became permanently paralyzed. After this, the claimant has initiated the

Property Law
6
proceedings against college council and called them liable for the aforesaid accident under
Occupier’s Liability Act, 1957 and Occupier’s Liability Act, 1984. At the initial proceedings, the
trial court has entertained the claim made by claimant and held the college Authorities
responsible for the injury occurred to him. Trail court while giving the decision has submitted
that under the Section 1 (3) (b) of the act stipulated that an occupier of premises will be held
liable for all the risk mention under section 1(1) in respect of the visitors (other than his own
visitors) if he/she has the reasonable ground to believe that such visitors can come into area of
danger.
Further, the trial court also stated that in the studied case, the student had a nature of the person
that would be expected to enter into pool area. However, damages have reduced by 60% as
claimant also was guilty on his part according to the provisions of the Law Reform (Contributory
Negligence) Act 1945.
Defendant further made an appeal against the order of the trial court and then after the said
appeal has been allowed by the higher authority. It was held in the appeal that the single incident
related to trespass held in last 4 years before the cited case and for this reason, college authority
had no reason to believe that any student could came to the danger. So, there was no question of
applicability of Section 1(3) (b) and College could not be held liable for any kind of liability
under Occupier’s Liability Act, 1984.
Case 3- Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2003] 3 WLR 705
In the mentioned case, the defendant owned a sand quarry, which they have converted into a
country park later on. In the middle of the park, there was a lack enclosed to sandy banks. A

Property Law
7
warning notice stating “Hazardous water. Do not swim” was there. In addition to this defendant
also employed Rangers to stop people swimming there. Still, some people were used to get rude
with rangers and despite all notices they continued to swim in the lake.
Although, required notices were there, yet claimant, in this case, made his mind for swimming
and went into the water. As soon as he dived into the water, he got injured and his neck also got
a break. The reason behind this was, the point where claimant dived was a shallow water area.
Court of appeal held the defendant responsible and stated that the claimant will be treated as
trespasser despite the warning notices and repeated trespass. They additionally expressed that the
notice signs may have gone as an allurement to macho young fellows. Although the court of
appeal reduced the level of damages to 2/3 as claimant was responsible for contributory
Negligence under Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945.
Further, both claimant and defendant made an appeal on a different basis. The claimant appealed
as he found provided damages insufficient and defendant made appeal as the same found
previous decision inappropriate in respect of his liability, In this case, House of Lords was
concerned about the applicability of relevant sections of Occupier’s Liability Act 1984. After the
appeal in the case, it was held by House of Lords that defendant will not be held.
It was also stated by Lord Hoffman that no duty of care was there on the part of defendant yet the
same taken appropriate measure to warn the claimant. It was the claimant who failed to take care
of him, not the defendant. The claimant had full knowledge about the circumstances and
involved risk, and defendant also prescribed necessary warnings. Hence, claimant could not
assume that it was safe swimming in the said lake for any reason. Claimant voluntarily has taken
a risk in this case. He further stated that imposition of penalty on the defendant in such kind of

Property Law
8
cases would have an adverse impact on the development of national parks and such other similar
facilities. So, in the conclusion, it was decided that claimant will not be entitled to get any
damages from the defendant.
Section 1(3) (c) prescribed that occupier will be held liable where he/she could provide some
safety measures to the victim and the same becomes fail to do so. It was held in the case that the
said section will not be applicable here, as the defendant has taken all the security measures in
order to provide a safeguard to claimant.
Legal Precedents
The literal meaning of precedent is “what has happened earlier, let the same continue.” Legal
precedent is a previous instance or decision of a previous case which further taken as an example
in subsequent cases and helps in the decision of such cases (Gurnani, 2015). It can also state that
legal precedent is the decision given in the cases and then, later on, works as rules in the
decisions of subsequent cases. It generally happens in those situations where a proper act or law
is not defined on the subject matter of the case or the applicable law cannot apply as it is original
form and judges have to look after the decision of other courts in order to provide proper justice.
Here this is to mention that such decisions must not overrule of the current law. These decisions
work as a source of law in other cases and known as “Legal Precedents” (Lectlaw.com, 2018).
This is also to comprehend that why there is a need to follow Legal Precedents. In order to reply
to this investigation, it is to state that judges are there to provide proper justice but they do not
remain in a situation to provide the same where there is no law. So to grant justice in a fair and
consistent manner, judges take help of Legal Precedents (Public Health Law Map, 2018).

Property Law
9
However, a judge can deny following a particular precedent if such precedent is overruling,
reversing or distinguishing in nature from the relevant law because mistakes are not a subject
matter of repetition. Legal precedents have their exclusive significance in the area of justice.
Many of the times it has noted that these precedents have protected the rights of the victim.
Further, in so many cases, these precedents brought a new law in the area of jurisdiction.
Case law Providing Legal Precedents
As stated in the aforesaid discussion that legal precedents are the cases which subsequently refer
in the decisions of other cases and have their significance, this is to state that decision given in
all the three case stated above were of the nature of Legal precedent and further cited as a
reference in many of the cases.
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited was a lead case. In this case, the focus was on
Section 1(3) (b) of the act and it has decided that occupier will not be held responsible for the
loss occurred to the visitor if he/she could not believe that visitor would came across to danger.
This decision has referred in a subsequent case named Portsmouth Youth Activities Committee (A
Charity) V Poppleton: CA 12 JUN 2008. It was held in this case that occupier will not be liable
to pay off any damage to the claimant where the same could not be aware with the circumstances
of risk and such risk could not be prevented. Further, Donoghue v Folkestone Properties Limited
also cited in some other cases such as Higgs v W H Foster trading as Avalon Coaches, [2004]
EWCA Civ 843, Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust, [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1
WLR 653 and Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club and Another v Corporation of London
and Another [2005] EWHC 713. Hence, it is prove that the mentioned case is a Legal Precedent.

Property Law
10
Similarly, the decision given in the case Ratcliff v McConnell and Harper Adams College was
also of important nature and while giving the decision of the case Jebson V Ministry of Defence:
CA 28 JUN 2000, the same has been cited. According to the decision given in the case Ratcliff v
McConnell and Harper Adams College, if Occupier does not have any reasonable ground that
visitor can come into the environs of danger then Defendant i.e. occupier will not be held liable
for any damages or penalty.
In addition to the above two cases, the third case Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council stated
that according to the section 1 (3) (c) occupier is responsible if he/she can provide some safety
measure to visitors, so what are the safety measures? This would depend on the circumstances of
a particular case. Further, this was also stated that duty of an occupier cannot beyond the area of
common law. Where it is obvious that risk can exist, the occupier is not responsible to provide
any safety measure or instruction. This case had a lead significant and further cited as Legal
precedent in more than ten cases. It has worked as precedent in the cases such as Harvey v
Plymouth City Council CA (Bailii, [2010] EWCA Civ 860, [2010] PIQR P18, [2010] NPC 89),
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust CA (Bailii, [2006] EWCA Civ 39, [2006] 1 WLR
653), Cockbill v Riley QBD (Bailii, [2013] EWHC 656 (QB)) and many more.
Conclusion
In order to conclude the aforesaid discussion, it may state that the chosen act i.e. Occupier’s
Liability Act 1984 was a much needed Statue. In this area, Prior Law was Occupier’s Liability
Act 1957. This prior act had the very limited scope and the subsequent act covers the remaining
requirement of a prior statue. The cases mentioned under aforesaid discussion have decided on

Property Law
11
the basis of the chosen act. These cases have worked as a reference and Legal Precedents in
many of the cases.
If all the three cases defined above would have been entertained under the provision of prior
statue then decisions would not have been hence similar to the prior act only provides safeguard
to occupier’s visitors. Cases, where the claimant is a visitor, is a person other than the invited
visitor of Occupier has no legal remedy available in prior statue and such cases not even initiated
any action or proceeding as the same are treated as outside of the coverage of Law. After the
study of all three cases, it is prove that Section 1 of the chosen statue has it is own significance.
At the end of the discussion, it may conclude as that although the whole statue is important
Section 1 is the part which is most useful during proceedings of a case.