The occupier has a responsibility over those who enter the property
Another issue - does trespasser given the same protection?
o Basic level of responsibility will exist towards a trespasser - but the
protection afforded is not at the same level as for someone who has
the permission to enter on the property
o Trespassers are not always ill-intended people - even if they are - they
should be treated with basic human decency
Occupiers' liability act 57 - makes provision for lawful visitor
o Defines lawful visitor, occupier and premises
OLA 84 - makes provision for trespasser
o Certain mechanisms to fulfilled into benefit from the protection
What amounts to premises?
The duty to keep everyone on our property safe
Sometimes - a person who broke into somebody's house can be given more
protections that a lawful visitor
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
S1(1) - the person occupying the land/premises owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors…
o As an occupier - need to ensure that the state of the premises is
always maintained and kept to a standard => who owes the duty of
care? = the occupier
S1(2) - defines who is the occupier - a person - who exercise or is able to
exercise a sufficient degree of control over the premise
o Implies that the occupier does not always mean the owner of the
building
o Under OLA 57 - the occupier might still be liable to trespasser
o Wheat v Lacon
How the definition of occupier was interpreted
Who are we going to sue here? - who the defendant will be?
The tenants were occupiers
Snehaa Sewpaul 1
, Need to show the existence of some level of control - a sufficient
level of control over the premises
o Harris case
Can there be some level of control despite not having
occupation?
Yes - there is a possibility of control even if you do not occupy
the land
Example - the owner does not necessary occupy the land - but
he still have sufficient control over said land
S1(2) - defines lawful visitor
o The one who has express or implied permission to be on the premises
o Express permission - people who have specifically been invited onto
the premise
o People who you are not expecting should stay out of the premise
o Don't do thing that makes you assume that you would be given
permission
Possible excess of permission may render you a trespasser
o The Calgarth
Express permission onto the property does not imply that they
have permission to go everywhere on the premise or do
everything they want onto the premise
The need to respect boundaries
The minute you doing something else - as opposed to what you
actually came for or what the permission was actually given for -
you become a trespasser - the moment you exceed the
permission given to you - become a trespasser
What is a premise?
o Fixed or movable structure
It can be anything from lands to building to vessel - even ship in
a dry dock
Even scaffolding and ladders can be seen as premises
Snehaa Sewpaul 2
Another issue - does trespasser given the same protection?
o Basic level of responsibility will exist towards a trespasser - but the
protection afforded is not at the same level as for someone who has
the permission to enter on the property
o Trespassers are not always ill-intended people - even if they are - they
should be treated with basic human decency
Occupiers' liability act 57 - makes provision for lawful visitor
o Defines lawful visitor, occupier and premises
OLA 84 - makes provision for trespasser
o Certain mechanisms to fulfilled into benefit from the protection
What amounts to premises?
The duty to keep everyone on our property safe
Sometimes - a person who broke into somebody's house can be given more
protections that a lawful visitor
Occupiers' Liability Act 1957
S1(1) - the person occupying the land/premises owes a duty of care to lawful
visitors…
o As an occupier - need to ensure that the state of the premises is
always maintained and kept to a standard => who owes the duty of
care? = the occupier
S1(2) - defines who is the occupier - a person - who exercise or is able to
exercise a sufficient degree of control over the premise
o Implies that the occupier does not always mean the owner of the
building
o Under OLA 57 - the occupier might still be liable to trespasser
o Wheat v Lacon
How the definition of occupier was interpreted
Who are we going to sue here? - who the defendant will be?
The tenants were occupiers
Snehaa Sewpaul 1
, Need to show the existence of some level of control - a sufficient
level of control over the premises
o Harris case
Can there be some level of control despite not having
occupation?
Yes - there is a possibility of control even if you do not occupy
the land
Example - the owner does not necessary occupy the land - but
he still have sufficient control over said land
S1(2) - defines lawful visitor
o The one who has express or implied permission to be on the premises
o Express permission - people who have specifically been invited onto
the premise
o People who you are not expecting should stay out of the premise
o Don't do thing that makes you assume that you would be given
permission
Possible excess of permission may render you a trespasser
o The Calgarth
Express permission onto the property does not imply that they
have permission to go everywhere on the premise or do
everything they want onto the premise
The need to respect boundaries
The minute you doing something else - as opposed to what you
actually came for or what the permission was actually given for -
you become a trespasser - the moment you exceed the
permission given to you - become a trespasser
What is a premise?
o Fixed or movable structure
It can be anything from lands to building to vessel - even ship in
a dry dock
Even scaffolding and ladders can be seen as premises
Snehaa Sewpaul 2
