Learning Outcomes
This article focuses on the definition and identification of an 'occupier' for the purposes of the Occupiers’ Liability Acts 1957 and 1984. After reading this article, you should be able to identify who qualifies as an occupier based on the legal principle of 'control' over premises, understand that ownership is not determinative, and recognise situations where multiple occupiers may exist. This understanding is important for applying the correct duty of care in SQE1 assessment scenarios involving premises liability.
SQE1 Syllabus
For SQE1, you are required to understand the fundamental principles of occupiers' liability, including how to identify the party legally responsible for the safety of premises. This involves applying the concept of 'control' as established by statute and case law. Your ability to correctly identify the occupier is essential for determining liability under both the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and 1984 in assessment questions.
Key areas for revision include:
- The definition of an 'occupier' under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957, s 1(2).
- The legal test of 'control' over premises versus simple ownership.
- Factors indicating sufficient control to establish occupier status.
- The concept of multiple occupiers sharing control over the same premises.
- Key case law principles establishing who qualifies as an occupier (e.g., Wheat v Lacon).
Test Your Knowledge
Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.
- True or False: Only the legal owner of a property can be an 'occupier' under the Occupiers' Liability Acts?
- Which legal case established that there can be more than one occupier of premises simultaneously?
- What is the primary legal test used to determine if someone is an 'occupier' for the purposes of occupiers' liability?
Introduction
Establishing liability under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) or the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 (OLA 1984) begins with identifying the correct defendant. The defendant must be the 'occupier' of the 'premises' where the injury occurred. Unlike in everyday language, legal 'occupation' is not synonymous with ownership or physical presence. Instead, the law focuses on the degree of control a person exercises over the premises. Correctly identifying the occupier is a foundational step in any occupiers' liability claim and is frequently tested in SQE1 assessments.
Identifying the Occupier: The Control Test
The OLA 1957 provides the definition relevant to both Acts. Section 1(2) states that the duties under the Act are imposed on persons ‘occupying or having control over’ premises. Case law has clarified that the primary factor is the degree of control exercised.
Key Term: Occupier A person who has a sufficient degree of control over premises to the extent that they ought to realise that any failure on their part to use care may result in injury to a person lawfully coming there.
This definition originates from the leading case of Wheat v E Lacon & Co Ltd [1966] AC 552 (HL). In this case, both the brewery owners and the managers who lived in and ran the pub were found to be occupiers of the staircase where a guest fatally fell. This established that:
- Control is Key: Occupancy is based on control, not necessarily ownership.
- Multiple Occupiers: There can be more than one occupier of the same premises if multiple parties exercise control.
The degree of control required is sufficient control to allow the person to meet the obligations imposed by the Acts – essentially, the ability to ensure the premises are reasonably safe for lawful visitors (OLA 1957) or to take reasonable steps regarding known dangers for non-visitors (OLA 1984).
Factors Indicating Control
Determining 'sufficient control' is a question of fact in each case. Courts consider various factors, including:
- Authority to Permit/Deny Entry: Can the person decide who enters the premises?
- Responsibility for Maintenance/Repairs: Does the person have the obligation or right to maintain the premises and repair defects?
- Management of Activities: Does the person oversee or manage activities conducted on the premises?
- Physical Possession: While not essential, physical occupation can indicate control (Harris v Birkenhead Corporation [1976] 1 WLR 279 (CA) established legal control without physical possession).
Worked Example 1.1
A local council owns a park containing a playground. The council contracts with 'Playsafe Ltd' to manage and maintain the playground equipment daily. A child is injured due to faulty swing equipment that Playsafe Ltd failed to repair despite noticing the defect. Who is/are the likely occupier(s) of the playground equipment?
Answer: Both the local council and Playsafe Ltd could potentially be occupiers. The council owns the park and retains ultimate control. Playsafe Ltd exercises day-to-day control over the specific playground equipment, including maintenance, making it likely they also have sufficient control to be an occupier of that equipment.
Multiple and Shared Occupancy
As Wheat v Lacon demonstrates, premises can have multiple occupiers. This often occurs in situations like:
- Landlord and Tenant: A tenant typically occupies the leased premises, while the landlord might retain control (and thus be an occupier) of common areas like staircases or shared entrances.
- Owner and Independent Contractor: An owner might engage a contractor to work on their premises. The owner usually remains an occupier, but the contractor might also become an occupier of the specific area where they are working and exercising control (e.g., erecting scaffolding).
Exam Warning
Do not assume the owner is always the occupier. Focus on identifying who has sufficient control over the specific part of the premises where the incident occurred. In assessment questions, facts indicating management, maintenance responsibilities, or the power to exclude others are key clues to identifying the occupier(s).
Revision Tip
Remember the principle from Wheat v Lacon: control is the determinant factor. Ask yourself: "Who had the practical ability to prevent the injury on these premises?" This often points to the party or parties with sufficient control to be deemed occupiers.
Summary
Identifying the occupier is a critical first step in occupiers' liability claims. The key determinant is not ownership but the degree of control exercised over the premises. A party has sufficient control if they can take steps to ensure the safety of those entering the premises. There can be multiple occupiers of the same premises simultaneously, each potentially owing a duty of care depending on the area of control. Landmark cases like Wheat v Lacon establish these principles.
Key Point Checklist
This article has covered the following key knowledge points:
- The definition of an 'occupier' in occupiers' liability is based on control, not ownership (OLA 1957, s 1(2)).
- The test is whether a person has a sufficient degree of control over the premises (Wheat v Lacon).
- Control can be evidenced by factors such as authority over entry, responsibility for maintenance, and management of activities.
- There can be more than one occupier of the same premises if control is shared or divided.
- Identifying the occupier is essential for determining who owes a duty under the OLA 1957 or OLA 1984.
Key Terms and Concepts
- Occupier
