## Facts

- Mr. Newbery (N) lived on an allotment and frequently slept in a shed to protect his belongings.
- Mr. Revill (R) and Mr. Grainger (G) trespassed onto N's allotment with the intention of breaking into the shed.
- On hearing the attempted break-in, N fired a 12-bore shotgun through a hole in the shed, claiming his intent was to scare rather than injure.
- The shot injured R, who then brought a personal injury claim against N for negligence and breach of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984.
- N argued that R’s illegal conduct barred his claim under the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio and also alleged contributory negligence.

## Issues

1. Whether an occupier can rely on a claimant's illegal conduct (trespass or attempted burglary) as a complete defense to negligence under the doctrine of ex turpi causa non oritur actio.
2. Whether the duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 was breached by N in shooting at trespassers without proper identification of their position.
3. Whether and to what extent R’s illegal conduct should be considered as contributory negligence in the assessment of damages.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that the occupier’s duty of care under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies even to trespassers.
- The ex turpi causa doctrine does not provide a complete bar to a claim arising from an occupier's negligent actions, even if the claimant was engaged in an illegal act.
- N was found to have breached his duty by firing the shotgun in these circumstances.
- R’s damages were reduced to reflect contributory negligence, recognizing that his own unlawful conduct contributed to his injury.
- N’s appeal was dismissed and the trial judge’s decision to award reduced damages was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- The Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 imposes a duty of care on occupiers towards non-visitors, including trespassers, in certain circumstances.
- The ex turpi causa doctrine generally precludes a claim based on the claimant's illegal act, but does not automatically bar claims where the defendant's negligence is also a factor.
- Contributory negligence operates to reduce, rather than extinguish, a claimant’s recovery when their unlawful actions contribute to their injury.
- The law requires an assessment of reasonableness in the occupier’s actions, regardless of the claimant’s legal status on the property.

## Conclusion

Revill v Newbery establishes that, under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984, occupiers must take reasonable care even with respect to trespassers, and that unlawful conduct by a claimant may reduce but does not entirely eliminate liability through ex turpi causa; rather, it is addressed through contributory negligence.

Revill v Newbery [1996] 2 WLR 239